Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[rjs330]

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?



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.



Tiktaalik Roseae says hello

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



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.



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.



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?

First of all I don't believe in the common ancestor so I don't care what it might look like. You do so you tell me what it looked,like.

Once again you assume evolution therefore the fossil must be evolutionary according to the myth. How do you know the fossil wasn't just it's own creature and was born that way and had always been that way from the beginning? What was it before it evolved into what it was when fossilized. How do you know it was? You assume so because you believe it. Until we can actually observe evolution of one thing changing into another evolution will,always be an assumption. Oh we can't observe that because it takes millions of years and we will,never live that long to see it.

We have mammals and reptiles and arachnids and all that now. But according to evolution all these things came from one thing and evolved into all these things this becoming something it wasn't. We have No evidence of that happening.

What do I think we should see? I think we should see that all creatures were created unique according to its kind. Birds have always been birds, lizards have always been lizards and monkeys have always been monkeys. Humans were created unique and separate from all other creatures with an immortal soul and the capacity to do all the incredible things we do. Unfortuneately we also were created with the capacity to,come up with such unadulterated nonsense as evolution.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

First of all I don't believe in the common ancestor so I don't care what it might look like. You do so you tell me what it looked,like.

I'm not asking if you believe in it or not, i'm asking you what evidence would you expect to see that would change your mind? You keep repeating "Thats not evidence" to every bit of evidence that has been shown to you. So you need to explain what exactly you think the evidence should look like.

Once again you assume evolution therefore the fossil must be evolutionary according to the myth.

Are you saying the massive fossil record we have doesn't exist? I don't assume evolution. I follow the evidence to its conclusion and it's pretty clear what the evidence is telling us.

How do you know the fossil wasn't just it's own creature and was born that way and had always been that way from the beginning?

Because the fossils that proceed it are consistent with what we should see if evolution is true. You also seem to be fixated on this idea that a creature suddenly turned into another. It takes place in populations not individuals. This has been explained to you many, many times. We also have DNA evidence which you also deny. Here is how overwhelming DNA evidence is: You could destroy the entire fossil record today and evolution would still be overwhelmingly true just by what we see in DNA.

Until we can actually observe evolution of one thing changing into another evolution will,always be an assumption.

Are you expecting to see one creature give birth to another creature? Yes or no. If yes, you don't understand evolution. If no, what do you want to see? You have to explain it. If you're going to deny every bit of evidence that is shown to you, then explain what it is you think you should see.

We have mammals and reptiles and arachnids and all that now. But according to evolution all these things came from one thing and evolved into all these things this becoming something it wasn't. We have No evidence of that happening.

Comparative anatomy, embryology, fossil record, DNA, observations and experimentation in the lab and in nature. There are mountains of evidence.

What do I think we should see? I think we should see that all creatures were created unique according to its kind

What is a "kind"? Are mammals a kind? Are vertebrates a kind?

Humans were created unique and separate from all other creatures with an immortal soul and the capacity to do all the incredible things we do

The evidence tells a much different story.

Unfortuneately we also were created with the capacity to,come up with such unadulterated nonsense as evolution.

Go into a biomedical research lab and say this. You'll be laughed out of the building. Our understanding of evolution is vital to the advancement of modern medicine.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_02
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_03
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_05

 

[SteveB28]

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.

Give another explanation for those IDENTICAL LOCATIONS!

Hundreds of thousands of them!

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Steve.

What an interesting topic we have here.

The concept of randomness simply implies 'without bias', in a mathematical sense.

Not a very good definition, Steve. A random event is an event that is not predictable, no identified
pattern in the data.

When I throw a fair die, there is a 1 in 6 chance of any particular integer showing face up.

I reject the idea that the throw of a die results in a chance (random) outcome. If every variable
can be satisfied, then the result of every throw is predictable. All you need to do is calculate, the
initial velocity, rotation, die shape, die mass, surface drag of both die, and the surface on which
it impacts, e.t.c. If all the variables are known then the outcome is entirely predictable.

In practice, the greater number of trials I perform, the closer my results will reflect that
probability. In other words, the randomness of the event is demonstrated.

As with every other mystical, random event, the outcomes can be calculated, when all causes
are identified. Surely you don't think for one moment that physics cannot calculate the
outcome of a die throw?

We should see those insertions 'scattered' in each of the genomes, with no particular
pattern. We should see a similar scattering in and between each of the other primate species
as well.

A pattern that is not identified does not mean that a pattern does not exist. Just because
you do not comprehend any pattern in the data, this logically never implies a random event.

But we don't. The trial isn't a 'fair' one........the 'fix' is in.

Causation implies that all events are caused, there cannot exist a random event.

And the 'fix' is the common ancestor/s shared by those primate species.

Except the common ancestor is always missing.
Mysticism.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not asking if you believe in it or not, i'm asking you what evidence would you expect to see that would change your mind? You keep repeating "Thats not evidence" to every bit of evidence that has been shown to you. So you need to explain what exactly you think the evidence should look like.



Are you saying the massive fossil record we have doesn't exist? I don't assume evolution. I follow the evidence to its conclusion and it's pretty clear what the evidence is telling us.



Because the fossils that proceed it are consistent with what we should see if evolution is true. You also seem to be fixated on this idea that a creature suddenly turned into another. It takes place in populations not individuals. This has been explained to you many, many times. We also have DNA evidence which you also deny. Here is how overwhelming DNA evidence is: You could destroy the entire fossil record today and evolution would still be overwhelmingly true just by what we see in DNA.



Are you expecting to see one creature give birth to another creature? Yes or no. If yes, you don't understand evolution. If no, what do you want to see? You have to explain it. If you're going to deny every bit of evidence that is shown to you, then explain what it is you think you should see.



Comparative anatomy, embryology, fossil record, DNA, observations and experimentation in the lab and in nature. There are mountains of evidence.



What is a "kind"? Are mammals a kind? Are vertebrates a kind?



The evidence tells a much different story.



Go into a biomedical research lab and say this. You'll be laughed out of the building. Our understanding of evolution is vital to the advancement of modern medicine.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_02
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_03
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_05

I,think I would find no evidence of evolution because it's a false belief system. Evolution didn't happen. Its like asking me to tell you what a Martian would look like if there were Martians.

Yes I know creatures evolve or adapt. We can prove that. But they don't evolve into any other type of creature than they were. Its still,a butterfly. Not sure how,many times I have to answer this. I don't believe evolution says a lizard suddenly pops out a chicken. So quit making that leap. No creationist does.

We understand that the claim is slow change over millions of years. But there is no evidence that it occurred. No evidence that something slowly changed over millions of years from one type of creature into another. Its assumed it happened.

DNA only proves that the creature with the DNA is that creature. It doesn't prove it was anything other than that. Evolution assumes it does.

And to be clear again. Creatures, viruses, things, nature changes to adapt to changing conditions. But they always remain The same type of what they started as.

It's all assumption.

A kind is a kind. A fish is a fish, a Bird a Bird a lizard a lizard a cat is a cat a human a human a monkey a monkey.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello DH.

Where the confusion starts is in the clear divide between mathematics and
the real world, i.e., space time. Mathematics is a construction of the human
mind, maths can have a random number, a bounded infinity. Reality, space
time, is finite, no random events, not infinite, entirely bounded.

For some reason people confuse the mathematical fiction with the real world.
Cosmologists and physicists make this cross over frequently, they misunderstand.

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

Causation simply means that all events have causes, no random events have ever
occurred. Evolutionary theory is clearly incorrect when they assign an observation
as a random event. That is very unscientific, that is mysticism, no pattern observed
it must be random, that is incorrect.

We need an inquisition, we need to cleanse the scientific world, all mystics must burn.

Science is all about pattern recognition, randomness is the enemy of science. Even
the weather has a defined pattern, though the variables are enormous.

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

Fossil evidence is rare, very difficult to paint the canvas with so little paint.

Horseshoe crabs remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
We would expect tremendous genetic drift over hundreds of millions of years.
We do not observe any genetic drift from the earliest fossil to the present.

One of the problems with fossil evidence, is that fossil evidence occurs under
conditions that are favorable for fossil formation. Insignificant snapshots in select
environments, in very specific time frames.

You don't find humans together with dinosaurs

No one should be surprised by this absence in a partial fossil record.
Lots of missing evidence in the fossil record, lots of sudden appearances of
species without any observable ancestry.

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.

Some species exhibit change within the species, other species do not exhibit any
change over time.

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

Correct, though you may find other vertebrates that are related to vertebrates
on other continents.

 

[SteveB28]

Not a very good definition, Steve. A random event is an event that is not predictable, no identified
pattern in the data.

I reject the idea that the throw of a die results in a chance (random) outcome. If every variable
can be satisfied, then the result of every throw is predictable. All you need to do is calculate, the
initial velocity, rotation, die shape, die mass, surface drag of both die, and the surface on which
it impacts, e.t.c. If all the variables are known then the outcome is entirely predictable.

And here, exactly, is where you people founder as you do on every other argument of this nature......the evidence shows you to be wrong!

If I throw a die once, then there is no "predictable pattern" indeed. There is nothing to uphold the theoretical contention of a 1 in 6 random probability. Even if I throw the die 6 times, it is highly unlikely that I would find that I achieve each of the 6 possible results in such a limited trial.

However, if I conduct the trial, say, 1200 times I find that an interesting fact emerges.....namely, that my results are much closer to a 100% confirmation of the probability. And if I conduct it 12,000 times, it becomes even closer to 100%.

In other words, the evidence that I am able to collect confirms that throwing a die confers a random outcome of 1 in 6 for each integer on that die!

EVIDENCE.....the downfall of the dogmatic!

Except the common ancestor is always missing.

The ignorance is stunning! You have no idea at all about the nature of a nested hierarchy, do you? Just think for a moment (without your 'dogma goggles' on) and you might be able to work out for yourself just why that is a nonsense statement........

 

[pat34lee]

What on earth are you talking about? Do you not understand how a family tree works? Yikes

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/testing_the_orchard_model_and032481.html

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I,think I would find no evidence of evolution because it's a false belief system. Evolution didn't happen

We literally have mountains of examples of evolution happened and continues to happen. But that is not what I am asking you. I am asking you to explain if evolution is true, what would YOU want to see that would convince you. What should we see if evolution is true? Saying "I wouldn't find anything" is not an answer to the question. Try again.

Yes I know creatures evolve or adapt. We can prove that

Adapting is the same thing as evolution. Random genetic mutations happen constantly. Every new born has about 50-100 of them. Beneficial mutations that make an organism more fit to reproduce are passed on to their offpspring and spread to the population. These changes happen over and over and over and over again throughout populations. So now you must answer another question:

What is the mechanism that stops these changes from happening and what is the limit to the changes a population can make? Demonstrate this with an experiment and a falsifiable test.

But they don't evolve into any other type of creature than they were. Its still,a butterfly. Not sure how,many times I have to answer this

Of course its still a butterfly. Every species ever born was the same as its parents but its ancestors looked different. Evolution takes place in populations, not in individual species. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.

We understand that the claim is slow change over millions of years. But there is no evidence that it occurred. No evidence that something slowly changed over millions of years from one type of creature into another. Its assumed it happened

Nothing is assumed in science. You don't know what you're talking about. It's an investigation of the natural world. We make an observation and then ask a question. We observe that all life has similarities to one another so we ask the question "Is all life on earth related?" To answer these questions we must examine the evidence and make predictions about what we should observe. That evidence is overwhelming in comparative anatomy, fossil record, DNA, experimentation in the lab and in nature.

It is the most comprehensive, most tested theory in all of science. It has faced scrutiny for over 150 years and it passes every single test it has ever faced with flying colors. It is supported by an abundance of facts and it is contradicted by literally nothing.

DNA only proves that the creature with the DNA is that creature. It doesn't prove it was anything other than that. Evolution assumes it does.

DNA demonstrates common ancestry. Shared ERVs among species that fit into a perfect nested hierarchy is exactly what we should see if evolution is true. And guess what....that is exactly what we observe.

Care to explain why a chicken has DNA to grow teeth?

Care to explain why whales have vestigial hip and leg bones in their skeletons and when we test our hypothesis that they evolved from 4 legged land mammals we see transitional fossils and their DNA demonstrates their closest living relative is a hippo?

Care to explain why humans grow wisdom teeth but our jaws are too small for them?

A kind is a kind. A fish is a fish, a Bird a Bird a lizard a lizard a cat is a cat a human a human a monkey a monkey

Is a primate a kind? Is a mammal a kind? Is a vertebrate a kind?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/testing_the_orchard_model_and032481.html

So you can't provide an understanding of phylogeny in your own words so you link a creationist site. Perhaps you'd like to provide a source that isn't from proven liars like creationists sites are.

 

[pat34lee]

asexual reproduction.

It's a tough question to answer experimentally. One hypothesis is bad mutations are easier to eliminate from a population with sexual reproduction. You can read more about it here:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/07/how-did-sex-start/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Problem.
You have to have a goal in order to work toward something.

 

[rjs330]

We literally have mountains of examples of evolution happened and continues to happen. But that is not what I am asking you. I am asking you to explain if evolution is true, what would YOU want to see that would convince you. What should we see if evolution is true? Saying "I wouldn't find anything" is not an answer to the question. Try again.



Adapting is the same thing as evolution. Random genetic mutations happen constantly. Every new born has about 50-100 of them. Beneficial mutations that make an organism more fit to reproduce are passed on to their offpspring and spread to the population. These changes happen over and over and over and over again throughout populations. So now you must answer another question:

What is the mechanism that stops these changes from happening and what is the limit to the changes a population can make? Demonstrate this with an experiment and a falsifiable test.



Of course its still a butterfly. Every species ever born was the same as its parents but its ancestors looked different. Evolution takes place in populations, not in individual species. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.



Nothing is assumed in science. You don't know what you're talking about. It's an investigation of the natural world. We make an observation and then ask a question. We observe that all life has similarities to one another so we ask the question "Is all life on earth related?" To answer these questions we must examine the evidence and make predictions about what we should observe. That evidence is overwhelming in comparative anatomy, fossil record, DNA, experimentation in the lab and in nature.

It is the most comprehensive, most tested theory in all of science. It has faced scrutiny for over 150 years and it passes every single test it has ever faced with flying colors. It is supported by an abundance of facts and it is contradicted by literally nothing.



DNA demonstrates common ancestry. Shared ERVs among species that fit into a perfect nested hierarchy is exactly what we should see if evolution is true. And guess what....that is exactly what we observe.

Care to explain why a chicken has DNA to grow teeth?

Care to explain why whales have vestigial hip and leg bones in their skeletons and when we test our hypothesis that they evolved from 4 legged land mammals we see transitional fossils and their DNA demonstrates their closest living relative is a hippo?

Care to explain why humans grow wisdom teeth but our jaws are too small for them?



Is a primate a kind? Is a mammal a kind? Is a vertebrate a kind?

Man we are so far apart on this it's useless. You absolutely refuse to see that you claim a butterfly was always a butterfly and then claim it wasn't. Let me see if I can make this clear to you. A butterfly always looked like a butterfly. It may have had a different color or maybe less or more hair or longer or shorter legs or whatever, but when you looked at it you would say that's a butterfly.

Everything is assumed in evolution. You assume the bones on whales are vestigial hip bones. God said he,made whales separate from hippos so no evolution there. Evolution assumes everything because they can prove nothing.

I think I'm done. There no point. Its foolish to keep on arguing about something that can't be proven.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Problem.
You have to have a goal in order to work toward something.

You want a goal? How about being able to live and reproduce. That's life's ultimate goal, when you strip away everything to it's bare bones.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Man we are so far apart on this it's useless. You absolutely refuse to see that you claim a butterfly was always a butterfly and then claim it wasn't. Let me see if I can make this clear to you. A butterfly always looked like a butterfly. It may have had a different color or maybe less or more hair or longer or shorter legs or whatever, but when you looked at it you would say that's a butterfly.

Everything is assumed in evolution. You assume the bones on whales are vestigial hip bones. God said he,made whales separate from hippos so no evolution there. Evolution assumes everything because they can prove nothing.

I think I'm done. There no point. Its foolish to keep on arguing about something that can't be proven.

And yet, in the end, God's creation shows that evolution is a fact and that Biblical creation is wrong.

 

[pat34lee]

Adapting is the same thing as evolution. Random genetic mutations happen constantly. Every new born has about 50-100 of them. Beneficial mutations that make an organism more fit to reproduce are passed on to their offpspring and spread to the population. These changes happen over and over and over and over again throughout populations. So now you must answer another question:

1. What is the mechanism that stops these changes from happening and what is the limit to the changes a population can make? Demonstrate this with an experiment and a falsifiable test.

2. Care to explain why a chicken has DNA to grow teeth?

3. Care to explain why whales have vestigial hip and leg bones in their skeletons and when we test our hypothesis that they evolved from 4 legged land mammals we see transitional fossils and their DNA demonstrates their closest living relative is a hippo?

4. Care to explain why humans grow wisdom teeth but our jaws are too small for them?

5. Is a primate a kind? Is a mammal a kind? Is a vertebrate a kind?

Random genetic mutations do not lead anywhere except to sterility and death.

1. The same thing that keeps your computer from sentience. You must program
anything and everything that a computer does. Anything outside programming
gives unpredictable responses, up to the BSOD.

2. Ever hear of an egg tooth? Necessary to break out of a healthy shell.

3. Necessary for reproduction. DNA only demonstrates similarity, not necessarily
kindred.

4. degeneration. We used to be larger and grow older.

5. A kind is more like species. Most bears come from one kind. Equines are a kind.
Mammals and vertebrates contain many kinds.

 

[pat34lee]

And yet, in the end, God's creation shows that evolution is a fact and that Biblical creation is wrong.

That is an opinion, and wrong.

 

[pat34lee]

You want a goal? How about being able to live and reproduce. That's life's ultimate goal, when you strip away everything to it's bare bones.

And DNA excels at what it was created for; to keep us alive by
remaining the same as far as possible. Any and all changes make
the individual less fit to live and reproduce.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is an opinion, and wrong.

It is a fact. And I'm not wrong. The Bible claims that the rocks speak of God's glory, and they certainly do. And they don't speak about an extra-Biblical doctrine that isn't supported by any of the evidence we see from His creation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And DNA excels at what it was created for; to keep us alive by
remaining the same as far as possible. Any and all changes make
the individual less fit to live and reproduce.

You have never shown that changes in an individual make it less fit to live and able to reproduce. So your claim fails straight from the off.

 

[pat34lee]

But that individual is not that different from the rest of the bear population. It's a slightly different type of bear and does not stop being a bear. Just as it doesn't stop being a carnivore, a mammal, a therapsid, an amniote, a sarcopterygiian, a vertebrate, etc. [/URL]

Actually, at some point it must become something different.
Otherwise, how do you get from single-cell to multicellular?
Asexual to sexual reproduction? Plant to animal, fish to
amphibian to reptile......... All the while, gaining complexity
in opposition to everything we see in nature, much less in life.