Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[rjs330]

It's what the evidence tells us. It's pretty simple.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. If you're at all interested in learning, there are free classes online. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology

There is no evidence for this. Evolutionists don't know they guess and assume based on a belief system. They assume ERV is evidence they assume genome evidence they assume everything. There is NO proof of a common ancestor. There is NO evidence that spiders have been anything else but a spider. You state it as a fact yet facts must have proof in order to be fact. Yet you claim evolution doesn't deal in proof. If there is no proof there is no fact. You have no proof or even evidence that a spider was not always a spider. In fact you said it was always a spider. Evolutionists cannot show any real evidence of evolution. You can show all day long things you believe are evidence but it's not real evidence. Because it's impossible to recreate. There are no real transitional fossils. ERVs are only evidence Because you want them to be. You don't know what a spider was before it was a spider. It's all guess work. Therefore not a fact.

And please stop with the showing how butterflies create new species of butterflies as evidence. That may be,provable by observation. But it's still a butterfly it's no evidence that it was anything else but a butterfly. Its not evidence that we and the butterfly came from a common ancestor. Prove it.

 

[SteveB28]

There is no evidence for this. Evolutionists don't know they guess and assume based on a belief system. They assume ERV is evidence they assume genome evidence they assume everything. There is NO proof of a common ancestor. There is NO evidence that spiders have been anything else but a spider. You state it as a fact yet facts must have proof in order to be fact. Yet you claim evolution doesn't deal in proof. If there is no proof there is no fact. You have no proof or even evidence that a spider was not always a spider. In fact you said it was always a spider. Evolutionists cannot show any real evidence of evolution. You can show all day long things you believe are evidence but it's not real evidence. Because it's impossible to recreate. There are no real transitional fossils. ERVs are only evidence Because you want them to be. You don't know what a spider was before it was a spider. It's all guess work. Therefore not a fact.

And please stop with the showing how butterflies create new species of butterflies as evidence. That may be,provable by observation. But it's still a butterfly it's no evidence that it was anything else but a butterfly. Its not evidence that we and the butterfly came from a common ancestor. Prove it.

Are you stating that there is no evidence of identical ERV locations?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionists don't know they guess and assume based on a belief system.

That's putting it mildly.

Evolutionists like to separate themselves from abiogenesis.

Imagine if astronomers did that and just assumed stars existed?

I mean, astronomers will, if asked, give you the process as to how a star got started, then explain how that process works; right down to the molecular level.

Not evolutionists though.

No, sir.

They'll just say ABIOGENESIS DID IT, then claim they don't know how it happened.

And they've got the nerve to say the THEORY of evolution is one of the strongest ... if not THE strongest ... theories on earth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's putting it mildly.

Evolutionists like to separate themselves from abiogenesis.

Imagine if astronomers did that and just assumed stars existed?

I mean, astronomers will, if asked, give you the process as to how a star got started, then explain how that process works; right down to the molecular level.

Not evolutionists though.

No, sir.

They'll just say ABIOGENESIS DID IT, then claim they don't know how it happened.

And they've got the nerve to say the THEORY of evolution is one of the strongest ... if not THE strongest ... theories on earth.

That's because evolution DOESN'T say how life got here. It merely shows how life changed over it's existence on Earth. You're presenting a strawman argument.

 

[rjs330]

Are you stating that there is no evidence of identical ERV locations?

No because that's provable. What its not is evidence. Evolutionists assume it is. Just like everything is assumed to be evidence Because it hasn't been observed in,any way.

 

[Jimmy D]

Imagine if astronomers did that and just assumed stars existed?

Are you saying 'evolutionists' assume life exists? That's bad even for you.

 

[Speedwell]

I am quoting scripture, not Darwin---

Right. But the similarity is striking. Why do you think that "kinds" are immutable barriers to change?

What did Adam create??

Taxonomy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying 'evolutionists' assume life exists? That's bad even for you.

The point I'm making is that evolutionists separate themselves from abiogenesis because they can't explain how it happened.

If they could, I'm sure they would include it as part of their junk.

Astronomers, for example, include how their stars got started -- explaining it right down to the nuclear level.

 

[Jimmy D]

The point I'm making is that evolutionists separate themselves from abiogenesis because they can't explain how it happened.

Got it, they don't know everything - therefore they are wrong.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[bhsmte]

Got it, they don't know everything - therefore they are wrong.

Thanks for the insight.

Where with certain theists, it is not acceptable to state you dont know, ever. So, you make stuff up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem with the random genetic mutation theory is that over time genetic information is lost not added.

False and/or ignorant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, those are the same kind---they are both felines, my little kitty and the tiger sre both felines

They are also both mammals. Is "mammal" also a kind?
They are also both tetrapods. Is "tetrapod" also a kind?
They are also both eukaryotes. Is "eukaryote" also a kind?

No? Then where do you draw the line?
And, more importantly perhaps, HOW do you draw the line?

That is what I said. However, that is what I was taught, some little cell developed into a fish, eventually developed legs and went on land and eventually became an ape which eventually became a man----how that is not changing from one species to another is beyond me.

Maybe an analogy can clear it up.

Consider Italian, French and Spanish.
All 3 these languages are "roman" languages. They all derive from Latin.

So, the ancestors of the people who today speak French, Italian and Spanish, actually all spoke the same language in the past: Latin.

Over time, Latin turned into Italian in Italy, into Spanish in Spain and into French in France.

Now, consider this question: do you think that at some point in history a Latin speaking mother has raised a Spanish speaking child?

Would it be correct to state that every child that was ever raised, spoke the same language as its parents? I'll go ahead and assume that you agree that no Latin speaking mother has ever raised a Spanish speaking child.


But yet, the distant ancestors of Spanish speaking people, spoke Latin.


Clearly, Latin changed into Spanish, French, etc little by little. Sound by sound. Slowly, over the generations. Gradually.

So gradually actually, that no generation has ever raised a new generation that spoke a different language.

Well.... In exactly the same way, no member of species X, has ever given birth to a member of species Y.

I don't know how old you are. I am 65 and that is what evolution was when I was a kid.

That's not even what it was, when Darwin came up with it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The common ancestor of a spider is not the same common ancestor of us. And how do you know there was one common ancestor of spiders. Could there not have been a,lot of spiders in the beginning? How do you know there was only one type way back when?

DNA.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe in causation, there cannot exist a random event, random events are deemed
random, because the cause is unknown.

So....... your argument against this, is..........that you don't believe it?

Once again, are these events random?

Why do you ask this question? Considering that you have just said that you don't accept "yes" as an answer because.... "you don't believe that"?

To make the statement, 'Every fossil we find is consistent with the predictions evolution makes'. This is an unjustified statement, not at all supported by the entire fossil record.

It is a justified statement, because no fossil is ever found with the "wrong" features in the "wrong" locations.

ie, you don't find rabbits together with trilobites.
You don't find humans together with dinosaurs.
Every fossil you find, is always consistent in both anatomical features as well as geographic location, in context of a chronological progression of evolving traits and in context of geographical distribution of species.

For example, you'll also not find any kangaroo fossils in south america.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I reject the out of Africa explanation and favor an out of the middle east explanation.
There are no old cities in Africa, the oldest known cities are in the middle east.

Errr.... humans had to exist before they could build cities.
Cities don't just grow from the ground up. They need to be build.

Cities are a very recent development for homo sapiens. They are rather advanced settlements.

Mankind probably wandered down into Africa to escape a widespread drought in the
middle east.

No, they did not.
The archeological discoveries in africa are far older.
Humans were in africa before they were in the rest of the world.

Hence genetic tracing of populations would be biased towards Africa.

Genetic tracing is an objective measurement of data.
If humans didn't originate in africa, but rather migrated there (remember my explanation about the mother population, the variation and the genetic bottleneck produced by a group that migrates away from the mother population), then this would be evident from the DNA.

Genomic studies, in this sense, are a test of this model. The model predicts more genetic variation in africa, in the "mother population", as opposed to in the rest of the world, which are the offspring of the smaller migrating group.

This is exactly what we find. There is no bias there. If it was wrong, we would see MORE variation in a place that is not africa. But we do not.

Very little direct evidence of human habitation in Africa going back beyond six thousand years.

You mean, aside from all the fossils, stone tools etc?
Off course, if you ignore all the data, or just "don't believe it",....

I reject the idea that humans evolved in Africa.

Great.

Genetics is a fascinating subject.

A subject you reject with as argument that you "don't believe it".

Excuse my, while I ignore your objection.

 

[Jimmy D]

Errr.... humans had to exist before they could build cities.
Cities don't just grow from the ground up. They need to be build.

Cities are a very recent development for homo sapiens. They are rather advanced settlements.



No, they did not.
The archeological discoveries in africa are far older.
Humans were in africa before they were in the rest of the world.



Genetic tracing is an objective measurement of data.
If humans didn't originate in africa, but rather migrated there (remember my explanation about the mother population, the variation and the genetic bottleneck produced by a group that migrates away from the mother population), then this would be evidence from the DNA.

Genomic studies, in this sense, are a test of this model. The model predicts more genetic variation in africa, in the "mother population", as opposed to in the rest of the world, which are the offspring of the smaller migrating group.

This is exactly what we find. There is no bias there. If it was wrong, we would see MORE variation in a place that is not africa. But we do not.




You mean, aside from all the fossils etc?
Off course, if you ignore all the data, or just "don't believe it",....



Great.



A subject you reject with as argument that you "don't believe it".

Excuse my, while I ignore your objection.

I'm surprised that you took the time to respond to that post. If he thinks he can overturn a century's worth of research (in anthropology, paleontolgy, archaeology etc, etc) with that made-up nonsense I doubt he'll listen to you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is no evidence for this. Evolutionists don't know they guess and assume based on a belief system. They assume ERV is evidence they assume genome evidence they assume everything. There is NO proof of a common ancestor

This is classic "La la la la I can't hear you" argument. You can say this over and over if you'd like but you'll still be wrong and the evidence won't magically go away.

Let me ask you, since you seem think all of this evidence is just assumptions, could you please share with us what the evidence for a common ancestor would look like? What should we expect to see?

You can show all day long things you believe are evidence but it's not real evidence.

LOL! This just classic. Please tell us what the evidence should look like. I'm sure thousands of scientists around the word would love to know what you think the evidence should show.

There are no real transitional fossils

Tiktaalik Roseae says hello

And many many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

ERVs are only evidence Because you want them to be. You don't know what a spider was before it was a spider. It's all guess work. Therefore not a fact.

LOL! Classic. When shown a ton of evidence, you just close your eyes and plug your ears and scream "But thats not real evidence!!!"

Please enlighten us on what the evidence should look like. Are hundreds of thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to this type of study just completely mistaken? You are smarter than all of them?

You can say "It's not real evidence" till you're blue in the face, you will still be very wrong.

And please stop with the showing how butterflies create new species of butterflies as evidence. That may be,provable by observation. But it's still a butterfly it's no evidence that it was anything else but a butterfly

You don't understand evolution. Please take a biology class. This has been explained to you probably a dozen times in this same thread and you keep repeating your ignorance.

Its not evidence that we and the butterfly came from a common ancestor. Prove it.

Science doesn't deal in proof it follows the evidence and it is overwhelmingly in favor of common ancestry. You've already rejected the evidence for common ancestry many times over in this thread and you keep either moving the goal posts or plugging your ears and closing your eyes.

I hope your next reply is an explanation of what you think evidence should look like. Don't say "The evidence is impossible!" or "The evidence is assumptions" I want to see in your own words, what you think the evidence should show. What do you think we should see?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm surprised that you took the time to respond to that post. If he thinks he can overturn a century's worth of research (in anthropology, paleontolgy, archaeology etc, etc) with that made-up nonsense I doubt he'll listen to you.

I'm surprised that I take the time to respond to most nonsense on here.

But hey.... you gotta do something while the build server is running all the unit tests, right? ;-)

 

[rjs330]

DNA.

Proves nothing other than a spider is a spider.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I'm surprised that I take the time to respond to most nonsense on here.

Well, someone might learn something reading through the replies. I know i've learned a few things from some posters who are more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.