Why are there still apes?

[Hans Blaster]

Shorter Jimmy D:

Beware when quoting from "anti-evolution" websites, a lot of those sites lie frequently about what science and scientists say through the use of out-of-context and incomplete quote mining.

It's just a series of the tired old creationist quote mines (i.e lies) we've all seen a thousand times before. I can barely be bothered to respond to any of them but I'll pick one or two examples so you can hopefully realize how you're being mislead.

One can hardly be blamed if one comes to the conclusion that the professional creationists (that is those that are paid to write about creation or use it to raise funds as a focus of their ministry) are all liars. This does not mean that our posters and other parishioners repeating those falsehoods are liars, but rather have been duped. I feel sorry for them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busi...52d31d7b2b6e5ebd964311de1fe0a74_2_690x389.png

What? A chart with no robot penquins on it? And you trust it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where did you get this "one species split into two" observation?

OK, you are going to deny that species ever split into two? Heck, even AV1611vet believes that. He says there were a limit number of cats on the ark, and those few pairs diversified into the species known today.

Here are examples of species splitting in two: CB910: New species.

 

[James A]

This was my original post quoting Dawkins.

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species were so rapid and is very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors so, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

Are we good?

 

[Gene2memE]

The oldest multi organ animal, Jelly fish, never under go any significant mutation in its 400+ million years of existence.

Wha?

This is such a bizarre statement.

Cnidaria - the phylum jellyfish belong to - has undergone significant diversification in the last 700 million years. Jellyfish alone have four distinct subclasses, each with their own evolutionary history.

Propose to me how multiple distinct subclasses evolve without any mutation.

There are species known as living fossils - crocodiles, turtles etc. - due to them did not undergo any significant mutation.

Crocodile evolutionary history is very well documented (“Crocodiles are not living fossils,” says Christopher Brochu from the University of Iowa in the US. “Transitions between land, sea, and freshwater were more frequent than we thought, and the transitions were not always land-to-freshwater or freshwater-to-marine.”)

Turtle evolution is even more well documented.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This was my original post quoting Dawkins.

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species were so rapid and is very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors so, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

Are we good?

You completely misunderstood what he said. He didn't clarify "that he was not talking about creator". Let me refer you back to your own linked article. What it says is "Dawkins explained elsewhere as well, creationists seem to be fond of quote mining as well, even if it requires removing much of the argument." The point he is making is that he used the words you are quoting as a prelude to explaining why it is an incorrect argument.

Let me give an example that you will probably understand: Psalm 14:1 "There is no God" That's a direct quote from the bible. Is my quote mine honest? Is that really what the passage says?

 

[doubtingmerle]

This was my original post quoting Dawkins.

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species were so rapid and is very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors so, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

Are we good?

No, we are not good. You did not mention that looking like "someone planted the fossils there" was just an expression Dawkins used to introduce his subject by saying what the naive person might say when he first saw this. Dawkins goes on to explain why the fossil record is as it is. You left out the whole point of what he was saying, and quoted-mined a phrase from the introduction that can be easily misinterpreted.

The point is that the Cambrian was a time in which little worm like creatures had developed hard body parts that fossilized much better. Hard body parts can be used in many ways, so the creatures diversified over a 50 million year period or so, each using their hard parts in a different way. We "suddenly"--over dozens of millions of years-- have a whole lot of different worms that show distinct patterns that lead to the major phyla we know today.

All of that is consistent with evolution.

What part of that is even remotely consistent with your extreme creationist stand that refuses to accept that species ever split into two different species? Where are the Bactrian camels and donkeys and Australian spotted ducks in the Cambrian? Your view would predict they would be there, yes?

 

[James A]

@Bungle_Bear @doubtingmerle

Context : I stated that Cambrian Explosion has been an issue for Evolutionists and quoted Darwin. Someone replied that it probably was an issue at Darwin's time, but not anymore. In order to show that Biologists still talk about Cambrian Explosion, I quoted Dawkins. I was aware of some Creationists misunderstood the quote so, I added the clarification that Dawkins did not mean creation.

Honestly, did I mis-quote Dawkins?

 

[James A]

This is such a bizarre statement.

Have you proved your "one species split into two" claim? Jelly fishes having four distinct subclasses in 700+million years is not even close, correct?

 

[James A]

I really don't feel like allowing you to "win" this argument by defining "victory" into existence, i.e., if it isn't eternal (whatever that means) then it must have been created, therefore god.

"win" (sigh)

I have been debating with Evolutions[*] for over 10 years and I don't think, even in my wildest dreams, I can convince an Evolutionist that there is God. People who believe our mathematically discipled Universe and its complex life came into existence from nothing, by nothing, for nothing are too rigid to change.

I have seen atheists going to the extend of rejecting millennium old philosophical principles like "ad infinitum", "everything begins to exist has a cause" etc. to reject god - some of them hate god because they hate Religions !!

* Many Christians are fine with Theistic Evolution so, it was the supporters of "no pre design" I meant.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

@Bungle_Bear @doubtingmerle

Context : I stated that Cambrian Explosion has been an issue for Evolutionists and quoted Darwin. Someone replied that it probably was an issue at Darwin's time, but not anymore. In order to show that Biologists still talk about Cambrian Explosion, I quoted Dawkins. I was aware of some Creationists misunderstood the quote so, I added the clarification that Dawkins did not mean creation.

How many times does it need to be repeated - Dawkins said nothing about creation.

Honestly, did I mis-quote Dawkins?

Yes you did. Would my saying Psalm 14:1 says "There is no God" be a misquote?

Do you really not understand context?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"win" (sigh)

I have been debating with Evolutions[*] for over 10 years and I don't think, even in my wildest dreams, I can convince an Evolutionist that there is God. People who believe our mathematically discipled Universe and its complex life came into existence from nothing, by nothing, for nothing are too rigid to change.

I have seen atheists going to the extend of rejecting millennium old philosophical principles like "ad infinitum", "everything begins to exist has a cause" etc. to reject god - some of them hate god because they hate Religions !!

* Many Christians are fine with Theistic Evolution so, it was the supporters of "no pre design" I meant.

Thanks for assuming things about me.

 

[Gene2memE]

Have you proved your "one species split into two" claim? Jelly fishes having four distinct subclasses in 700+million years is not even close, correct?

Do you have any understanding of population evolution or cladistics?

Speciation (which is what I assume you mean by "one species split into two") has been observed directly and multiple times in laboratories under controlled conditions. Speciation has also been observed directly multiple times in natural conditions.

Jellyfish have four subclasses and at least 2000 well documented species (with estimates there are at least 200,000 different species). Again, how do you square this fact with your claim that "oldest multi organ animal, Jelly fish, never under go any significant mutation in its 400+ million years of existence."?

 

[Jimmy D]

@Bungle_Bear @doubtingmerle

Context : I stated that Cambrian Explosion has been an issue for Evolutionists and quoted Darwin. Someone replied that it probably was an issue at Darwin's time, but not anymore. In order to show that Biologists still talk about Cambrian Explosion, I quoted Dawkins. I was aware of some Creationists misunderstood the quote so, I added the clarification that Dawkins did not mean creation.

Honestly, did I mis-quote Dawkins?

It’s already been pointed out several times, to reinforce strange argument that the Cambrian explosion Is a thorn in the side of evolutionists you wrote...

“Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species during the Cambrian Explosion were so rapid ands very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.“

He doesn’t think that it “looks like someone planted the fossils there”, that was merely a rhetorical device at the start of his chapter, he then goes on to explain why that is not the case.

You quote Dawkins words out of context as if they back up your argument but the chapter from which they come actually does the opposite.... It does a nice job Of explaining aspects of the Cambrian.

Classic quote mining.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have seen atheists going to the extend of rejecting millennium old philosophical principles like "ad infinitum", "everything begins to exist has a cause" etc. to reject god - some of them hate god because they hate Religions !!

It may be that some atheists hate the concept of god, but atheists don't believe in god; they can't hate what doesn't exist.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Speciation (which is what I assume you mean by "one species split into two")

I am the one that brought in the term "one species split into two", so if that is confusing terminology, I will take the blame for that one.

I was thinking of something like a ring species where A breeds with B, B with C, and C with D, but A cannot breed with D. No doubt A, B, C, and D all came from the same ancestors. Now suppose B and C die out. We are left with two species, A and D. We might never know which of those is most like the ancestor species, and which could best be described as a new species. It is not that important. What we know is that there was once one species, now there are two. To my amateur mind "one species split into two" is a good way to describe what just happened. I imagine that most speciation takes a path similar to what I just described. If speciation is a better term than "one species split into two", I can certainly use that term instead.

 

[driewerf]

So the idea of a God who came down to earth in human form to die for you out of love so you wouldn't have to is ridiculous but this,..
View attachment 284221
turning into this,...
View attachment 284222
is?? Which idea seems more logical to you? Oh wait never mind,.. I didn't mean to use a picture of your dear Uncle Chester. (JK )

Do you know -- yes or no-- that the ToE does NOT describe monkeys "turning" into a human, like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It has been explained many times here the last weeks, that individuals do not evolve, but populations do over different generations.
Did you know that when you wrote the post above yes or no?

 

[April_Rose]

Do you know -- yes or no-- that the ToE does NOT describe monkeys "turning" into a human, like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It has been explained many times here the last weeks, that individuals do not evolve, but populations do over different generations.
Did you know that when you wrote the post above yes or no?

Well maybe not turning into one directly but it describes slowly evolving into one.

 

[driewerf]

Do you know -- yes or no-- that the ToE does NOT describe monkeys "turning" into a human, like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It has been explained many times here the last weeks, that individuals do not evolve, but populations do over different generations.
Did you know that when you wrote the post above yes or no?

Well maybe not turning into one directly but it describes slowly evolving into one.

Good, since you know that, why were you knowningly using a misleading description?

 

[driewerf]

Another thing what is easier to believe,.. that the whole entire universe came out of one great big fart caused by nothing or that it was created by God?

Have you ever seen a cosmologist using the word "fart" for the Big Bang?