all these shows is that evolutionists will always find a way to explain the evidance away. but the fact is that nether the fossil record nor DNA show that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor. ¿is there any evidance that we share an ansestor with microbes?
@Answerquestions1 Yes, there is an extrodinary amount of evidence. If you need help finding it and you are wanting to know more, please tell me and I will gladly go through it with you in detail. Information can be found by reading the wikipedia article on the topic "Evidence of common decent", particularly the section titled "Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns".
@Answerquestions1 Paraphrased from Wikipedia article "Evidence of common descent”. All known organisms are based on the same biochemical structure. Genetic information is coded in DNA (or RNA in some viruses), the DNA is transcribed to RNA and translated into proteins by ribosomes. The genetic code translates to the same amino acids for almost every organism. Bacteria DNA inserted into a human codes for the same amino acids. For further info Google "Part 4 Molecular Sequence Evidence talkorigins
i have to jump on this Darwin was wrong and creationist too . there is a 3rd more complete theory state were life can live the universe manifests it. light waves and microwave can transfer information about one living being to another living being ,to have a baby not like its self .
You now have to use waybackmachine to get an archive of the article New Scientist released (or be a subscriber).
karamarouge seems to have missed the point of the article. Evolution is not being disputed. However the concept of the tree of life has been found to be an oversimplification for some applications, but is still a reasonable model for a simple explanation.
This video is bad propaganda from some one who didnt read the article he is talking about. THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE READ THE ARTICLE AND COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THE AUTHOR DID!
Darwin was indeed way off base and this is in no way similar to revision of newtonian physics.. I will post some quotes from scientists cited in the article
evolutionary scientists say we came from the primodial soup in the sea ,and through evolutionary process ,we started out as a fish.....and progressed to be a Amphibian,then a Reptile ,then a Bird ,then a Mammal,then a Human ..why is it people who lose limbs dont grow them back? like the amphibian ..why cant we fly ...why is a gorrila 10 times stronger than us ,i wanna know were is the fossil record to show the in between off the species above?
Actually, there's a contradiction in fossil records and Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory of natural selection is every organism requires a prior ancestral form. But even Darwin admits that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata is devoid of any evidence of such creatures. How, then, did these vast and inexplicably new species suddenly appear out of nowhere?
Before the Cambrian period is the Ediacaran period. There are many multi-cellular soft-bodied fossils from this era preserved in pre-Cambrian rock in Australia.
I have seen it personally for myself in strata in the Flinders Ranges, Australia. Stromatolites (colonies of cyanobacteria) from 630Ma, Dickensona from 550Ma (Ediacaran), achaeocyaths from 530Ma, molluscs from 520Ma.
++ "Before the Cambrian period is the Ediacaran period. There are many multi-cellular soft-bodied fossils from this era preserved in pre-Cambrian rock in Australia." ++
In science the response ... MANY means ... We have not got a clue?
** " There's no consensus if Neanderthal was a sub-species or a species. In any case, if they could interbreed, that would make them the same species. But according to your new definition of "kind", which is exactly the same as the definition of "species",
1) Darwin used KINDS as his definition for species. But the present evolutionists ignore Darwin on this matter and we have the (Goggle) Species problem, wikipedia.
2) Upon reading the following you will agree that we are the same KIND with the Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
Quote:
++ Hybrid humans
Some researchers are also convinced that hybridisation has been a major driving force in animal evolution (see "Natural born chimeras", and "Two into one"), and that the process is ongoing. "It is really common," says James Mallet, an evolutionary biologist at University College London. "Ten per cent of all animals regularly .....
I cant believe youre using the absence of a species barrier as evidence that there is some OTHER barrier which you still refuse to either define or explain the mechanics of.
"Ten per cent of all animals regularly hybridise with other species"
Thats your quote, not mine. If different species can hybridize, and theres no permanent barrier between species, and if "kind" only means the ability to interbreed under any circumstances (including outside species), than everything on Earth is one kind.
..... hybridise with other species." This is especially true in rapidly evolving lineages with lots of recently diverged species - including our own. There is evidence that early modern humans hybridised with our extinct relatives, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 363, p 2813). ++
Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
** " Look up "ring species". There is no barrier. This is nothing but baseless speculation, contradicted by evidence. **
Your theory which relates to Ring species does not support your Modern Evolutionary SynthesiS (MESS). In certain KINDs God has given the creatures the opportunity for great variety. We see this in the dog KIND the cat KIND and manKIND.
"We see this in the dog KIND the cat KIND and manKIND."
Dogs, cats and humans are species, not kinds. Unless by cats you meant feline? In which case cats, lions and pumas are the same "kind"? And by human you meant primate, in which humans, chimps, and gorillas are the same "kind"? ..
You STILL refuse to define the word kind. WHY?
---> What is a "kind", and what is the barrier between "kinds"?
Here's more info on species and why your claim of a "barrier"is nonsense:
For example of manKIND we have Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and the present 7 million Adam & Eve lookalikes who reside on the planet Earth. The term primate is relevantly only a new name given to humans and cannot be used as evidence for the theory of evolution or against it.
How have you determined that neanderthals are a "kind" of "man", but chimpanzees aren't?
By the definition of ape, we're both apes, just as we're both mammals, both vertibrates, and both part of the animal kingdom. These are all true by definition. So why aren't we both "man"? Are chimps and gorillas the same kind? Or are they different kinds as well? AND by what method do you deterimine the answer to this question? (If kind has a definition, as you claim.. but still refuse to say it)
"Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are all manKIND."
There's no consensus if Neanderthal was a sub-species or a species. In any case, if they could interbreed, that would make them the same species. But according to your new definition of "kind", which is exactly the same as the definition of "species", this is no problem, as speciation is an observed fact.
** "We see this in the dog KIND the cat KIND and manKIND."
Dogs, cats and humans are species, not kinds. Unless by cats you meant feline? In which case cats, lions and pumas are the same "kind"? And by human you meant primate, in which humans, chimps, and gorillas are the same "kind"? ..**
Now evolutionists because of zero evidence for their theory and despair over their understanding of the meaning of species (Google: Species problem, wikipedia) to muddy the clear water argue that: Ring species supports their theory. If evolutionists do not understand something they say: It supports our theory.
When the idea is fully investigated like your alleged TREE OF LIFE - it is ditched and forgotten and the fact there was never any evidence in the first place is buried with the TREE. The Ring species and your alleged TREE OF LIFE have millions of peer review papers, essays and books produced on the subjects ALL false evidence to give the impression that you have the empiric evidence but when we look the spades are out burying the alleged evidence quickly.
Over three thousand years prior to modern science God in his word the Bible in Genesis 1:12 expressly stated his Law regarding KINDS. God thus claimed the patent on KINDS in black & white. KIND has stood the test of time and has proven to be correct whereas evolutionists are in complete disarray with their species. Google: Species problem, wikipedia.
"Alright: things can only produce their own kind. Hah! Proof."
I'm STILL waiting for a definition of what a kind is. Not an example. I could say "horses and rabbits are the same kind". A definition please. Also, explain what the barrier is. We know that the large changes seen in the fossil record should not be observed until we're on the Earth for a very very long time, but why do you think they're IMPOSSIBLE? Is this just a religous belief, or do you claim scientific evidence?
God's Law on KINDS has never been broken in the long past - right through to the last 10,000 years. Evolutionists feeble attempts to come up with a 101 little theories confirm they have zero evidence i.e. speciation, genetic drift AND their failed experiments.
Quote:
Most animal testing involves invertebrates, especially Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode.
You can't even CLAIM that a "law" exists if your claim hinges on a word which you STILL refuse to define. "Kind" is not a scientific word and has no definition. Your claim can't even be evaluated until it uses words that actually mean something.
I have previously explained it - plus given you examples. I can see that God's Law on KINDS is the substantial difference between your theory of evolution and creation by an Intelligent Designer - God.
Gods Law on KINDS confirms that your theory of evolution is flawed and impossible.
How does that refute my claim that horses and rabbits are the same kind? Please see MY example of what a kind is, previous post. I'll even quote:
"Horses and rabbits are the same kind"
That's MY law of kinds. What is it that makes horses the same kind as rabbits, but not the same kind as tapirs? I refuse to explain. What makes chickens the same kind as crows, but not the same kind as velociraptors? You refuse to explain. Neither your nor my example defined the word.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
THUS this is complete proof that the Modern Evolutionary SynthesiS (MESS) is absolutely impossible.
** "Hm? Millions of years? How would we know exactly how long it took to lose its eyesight? That doesn't even seem like a huge mutation. And it's not "evidence" for evolution, it's just an example of a vestigial structure." **
I am surprised you say: "And it's not "evidence" for evolution, it's just an example of a vestigial structure."
Blind cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus) can sense light when young, even though their eyes lost their function over a million years of evolution. Scientists have found that the fish larvae can detect an overhead shadow and seek shelter by swimming towards it.
Quantitative genetic analyses have shown that the evolutionary impairment of eye development — as well as the loss of pigmentation and other cave-related changes — results from mutations at multiple gene sites (eye loci)
Here we demonstrate restoration of vision in cavefish whose immediate ancestors were blind and whose separate lineages may not have been exposed to light for the last one million years.
Google: Restoring sight in blind cave fish, biology
** "Also I'm not entirely sure what that sentence means. Evolution happens. Creationists normally admit this, because it's directly observed and obvious. They claim there's a limit, but a limit starting where, and ending where, and based on what data? .. So, in order to avoid saying "there's a limit", because that claim is baseless speculation, they incorrectly use the word "macro evolution" to describe.. I don't know what." **
THE LIMIT. God has placed a limit on the reproduction seed as recorded in Genesis 1:12. If this law was not in place life would be in chaos. But when we look at all the animals and manKIND they all look as if they were specially created.
Evolutionists have carried out millions of experiments in an attempt to get around Gods law on KINDS. Every attempt has failed. You ask: But a limit starting where, and ending where, and based on what data?
"Evolutionists have carried out millions of experiments in an attempt to get around Gods law on KINDS"
I'll give you an equally nonsensical statement.
"Gravitonians have carried out 12.4 billion experiments in an attempt to get around Yahweh's law of BLARG. Every attempt at proving the theory of gravity has failed. They can't get around Yahweh's law of BLARG.. which is.. you know, that thing I refuse to define, and scientists (gravitonians) don't even know exists."
** "Gravitonians have carried out 12.4 billion experiments in an attempt to get around Yahweh's law of BLARG. Every attempt at proving the theory of gravity has failed. They can't get around Yahweh's law of BLARG.." **
Strangely enough - you are correct. They have carries out numerous experiments to get around Yahweh's law of gravity - they failed and now God's law of gravity is accepted by all as FACT.
But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is another kettle of blind cave fish.
"they failed and now God's law of gravity is accepted by all as FACT"
Wait, so are you actually just being a troll? Because that's the most nonsensical thing I've heard in a while, on so many levels. If you're just trying to be a parody of creationists, there's no real point in responding.
You mentioned something called "Yahwehs law of gravity", and claimed that scientists have attempted to "get around it". What the heck is this referring to?
The fact that things fall has never been not-accepted. It's one of the many observations explained by the theory of gravity. Your comment still makes no sense.
You mentioned something called "Yahwehs law of gravity", and claimed that scientists have attempted to "get around it". What the heck is this referring to?
Lets see who really said WHAT? You said:
Yahweh's law of BLARG. Every attempt at proving the theory of gravity has failed. REMEMBER?
You mentioned something called "Yahwehs law of gravity", and claimed that scientists have attempted to "get around it". What the heck is this referring to? ........... Your comment still makes no sense. **
Have you never heard that over the past millennium that man has tried to fly?
"Have you never heard that over the past millennium that man has tried to fly?"
..are you trying to be as vague as possible? How does humans flying relate to you making claims using words that have no definition? This has gone from nonsensical to whatever you call the nonsensical version of nonsense.
** "are you trying to be as vague as possible? How does humans flying relate to you making claims using words that have no definition?" **
What words? The main word that I know that is not defined is the evolutionists word for species. At one time - everyone agreed with Charles Darwin that 'species' was the Bible stated 'KINDS'.
But over the last 150 years there is total confusion by what does an evolutionist mean by species.
Species was once used to refer to any identifiable group of animals, as we didn't know of a whole lot of groups. Eventually it gained the more rigorous definition of a group in which the members can all interbreed. Although even this is not a perfect definition, because the species barrier is not absolute, and sometimes closely related species can interbreed with various levels of success.
It's ironic that you'd cite the problem of identifying species, as the reason it's a problem is due to the absence of a barrier between them.. it's a fuzzy line. The difference between one species and another is not quantitative but qualitative. Look up "ring species". There is no barrier. This is nothing but baseless speculation, contradicted by evidence.
Whoops, I meant "not qualitative, but quantitative".. It's not the difference between the colour blue and the concept of happiness, but the differerence between the number 37 and the number 45. Different quantity, not quality. Or, in the case of biology, different degrees of genetic similarity. Not different "types" or "kinds".)
Currently the word "species" is the only scientific classification of animals which is not entirely invented by humans for convenience.
If you want to use the word "kind" instead, you'd better say what it MEANS. Kind is currently used as species was once used; as a layman's non-precise definition of an identifiable group, without any definition. If you're using your religion as a source, than the Bible classifies bats as a "kind" of bird. There's also no definition there, either.
"Do you deny that evolutionists have firstly carried out millions of experiments relating to obtaining changes to a particular 'species'?"
Aha! So you admit it means species. I don't know how many "experiments" there have been, although I do know that speciation is an observed fact, both natural and in experiments, the most famous probably being with fruit flies being fed 2 different foods until they speciate.
Speciation is not an observed fact. You give the game away when you allege that fruit flies eating 2 different foods until they speciate. What into? Yes fruit flies.
Your alleged speciation is just the normal DNA gene process system that God created. This is also patented by God.
"fruit flies eating 2 different foods until they speciate. What into? Yes fruit flies."
I have to resist saying "are you kidding" in every post. What's a fruit fly? A name we've given to a group of organisms. If the change was larger, you could say "still a fly - not a fruit fly, but a fly". Maybe "it's still an insect"? It speciated, according to the definition of species. If you want to say that some OTHER change is impossible, for the love of God, just make your claim instead of implying it.
I state the word 'species' does not mean I am saying it relates to 'KINDS'. I was just asking you a question using a word that hopefully you would understand so that I could debate the matter on a better understanding.
If you Google: Species problem, wikipedia - you will note that evolutionists have dozens of ideas for the meaning of species.
"evolutionists have dozens of ideas for the meaning of species"
The word "species" used to have no defined meaning, sort of like "kind". It's obvious to most people that there are different "kinds" or "types" of animals, but there was no real definition until pretty recently. Just because the absence of an unbreakable barrier between species makes it impossible to perfectly define them, does not mean that the word is useless. Again (for like the 20th time), if you have a better word, define it.
** "Do you deny that evolutionists have firstly carried out millions of experiments relating to obtaining changes to a particular 'species'?"
Aha! So you admit it means species. I don't know how many "experiments" there have been, although I do know that speciation is an observed fact, both natural and in experiments, the most famous probably being with fruit flies being fed 2 different foods until they speciate. **
"Do you agree that every one of these experiments has failed"
Ignorance of the evidence is not the same as an argument against it.
"You cannot break through the KINDS barrier."
That's like saying it's impossible to leave the Earth because we haven't done it yet.. even though we have.
Not only is speciation an observed fact, but you haven't stated what this barrier is, how it works, or what data supports it's existance. What is the mechanism of this barrier?
The barrier is what evolutionists have been attempting to do for centuries. You cannot get one species to change into a completely different species. You mentioned your fruit flies. After millions of experiments based over numerous generations all the millions upon millions of fruit flies were still FRUIT FLIES.
THUS the data is every experiment and natural reproduction carried out over the last 8,000 years.
God designed the mechanism and has the patent see Genesis 1:12.
Basically you're saying that a stalictite can't grow from 1mm to 15,000mm because we've only observed it growing from 14,900mm to 15,000 over the 100 years we've observed it grow (1mm/year). And also, your holy book lists 30mm stalictites as one "kind", 3000mm ones as another, 15000mm stalictites as yet another, without defining exactly what the word "kind" means.
Again, if you wanted to say it's impossible for a 3mm "kind" to turn into a 300mm "kind" I'd ask 2 things:
And for #2, I'd want a definition, not an example, such as "3mm is a kind and 300mm is a kind".
For #1, I'd want a physical limitation, not "my scipture says so according to my interpretation". What DATA supports that a 3mm can't turn into a 300mm? The absence of it being directly observed?
(replace 3mm with "the fish king" and 300mm with "the frog kind" to see how this relates to your non-answers)
5) Your alleged speciation is just the normal God created process of reproduction carried out between the KIND by means of the DNA gene process.
6) Just because a particular bacterium carries out its normal function for which it was created to eat waste and then changes its food source it remains a bacterium But because you have zero evidence evolutionists cry out falsely: A new species.
3) If offspring from the Hybrid creatures are not sterile they are of the same KIND. If the offspring are sterile they are on the limitations of that KIND.
4) With regards to limits within your theory of evolution it proves that your theory is totally flawed. A dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird. A rat-like creature can evolve into an ape. And an ape cannot evolve into a human. ManKIND was specially created by God in his likeness with Gods attributes.
"If offspring from the Hybrid creatures are not sterile they are of the same KIND. If the offspring are sterile they are on the limitations of that KIND."
Umm, that's the definition of species. You just replaced it with "kind".
FOR THE LAST TIME: If the word "kind" means something different that species, DEFINE IT.
STOP USING a word with no definition. Examples of a kind is not the same as defining the word.
** "If offspring from the Hybrid creatures are not sterile they are of the same KIND. If the offspring are sterile they are on the limitations of that KIND."
Umm, that's the definition of species. You just replaced it with "kind". FOR THE LAST TIME: If the word "kind" means something different that species, DEFINE IT. **
That was the same definition as believed by Darwin. You have zero evidence to support your ToE and have changed your meaning of species. KIND has a limitation.
Ironically some of the transitionals between dino/bird are so close, that some biologists think birds should be classified as a sub-order of dinosaurs. Compare a chicken skeleton with a velociraptor skeleton.
"And an ape cannot evolve into a human."
For more irony, "ape" is not a species, but a family. Humans, chimps and gorillas are all part of this family. The only reason to say that we're not is if you're offended by the idea.
Ironically some of the transitionals between dino/bird are so close, that some biologists think birds should be classified as a sub-order of dinosaurs. Compare a chicken skeleton with a velociraptor skeleton. **
The morphological evidence carried out by evolutionists over the last 150 years has been one big story of error after error.
Tremendous errors caused because they put what they want to be the case above the facts & evidence.
But God has equalised it out by allowing these alleged geniuses to be very gullible if they get too big for their fossils.
Some joke got out of hand and was misheard by a deaf evolutionist and suddenly the majority of evolutionists believe the impossible that because birds and dinosaurs lay eggs - Birds must have descended from dinosaurs.
Google:
Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds, sciencedaily
** "Tremendous errors caused because they put what they want to be the case above the facts & evidence."
You should be arrested by the irony police. **
Everyone loves dinosaurs - but that is no excuse to think of the most impossible idea and produce a theory to back up impossibility.
That is one thing great about God - he also has a sense of humour - which can be seen by his beautiful animals. Plus, he has given the power for manKIND to become a genius.
"ManKIND was specially created by God in his likeness with Gods attributes."
Wait, so God has a physical form? An "image"? God looked like us before we did? That's as silly as a sentient grasshopper telling us that the creator of the universe is a grasshopper, and in fact was a grasshopper before grasshoppers existed. You'd ask what God's wings and mandibles are for, eh? Well, what are God's eyes and bones large intestine and toes for? Why is God a primate? That's ridiculous.
4) Evolutionists want to be as much like animals as possible and do not want to accept that we are a special creation supremely different from the animals in that we have the special attributes given to manKIND by God Love, Power, Justice & Wisdom.
"Evolutionists want to be as much like animals as possible"
Biologically, we are part of the animal kingdom just as much as we're mammals. Do you deny that we're mammals, or part of the animal kingdom?
Philisophically, I wouldn't say we're animals, but science can make no claim on this.
And no, SCIENTISTS don't "want" anything; the goal of the scientific method is to increase knowledge of the natural world, NO MATTER WHAT the conclusion is, REGARDLESS of if you like it.
** "Biologically, we are part of the animal kingdom just as much as we're mammals. Do you deny that we're mammals, or part of the animal kingdom?
The word mammal has a certain manmade definition which includes humans. This gives no evidence to support your theory of evolution.
Arguing that we are made of the same elements as the animals etc again does not support your theory because this is evidence of intelligent design by a Creator.
"mammal has a certain manmade definition which includes humans. This gives no evidence.."
I was not using it as evidence. All classification above "species" is just for human convenience. The fact that we can classify things into major groups, which can then be easily classified into smaller and smaller groups, leading to species, is another story.
But from the DEFINITION of mammals, we are mammals, just as we are vertibrates, animals, and apes.
...... wish to call manKIND an animal and an ape that is just a sad reflection to the fact they have zero evidence that they must now create false evidence.
What is interesting is the fact that the bat is the only flying mammal and that it confirms Special Creation. Evolutionists claim that a population of mice for millions of years carried around with them part-wings whilst they allegedly learnt to fly. And worse - they have no evidence!
Wait, so do you agree or disagree that humans are part of the animal kingdom, biologically? The word "animal" is nothing but a DEFINITION to organize living things. By the DEFINITION of the word animal (multicellular organisms which get energy from other organisms), we are animals, because we have these characteristics. (and we're not plants)
What reason do you have to say that bonobos are (biologically) animals, but humans aren't? Maybe were plants?
** "What reason do you have to say that bonobos are (biologically) animals, but humans aren't? Maybe were plants?" ++
The term 'animal' was originally in Genesis over 3,000 years ago and it applied to certain creatures that were created on the sixth creative period (day).
Genesis confirms that later during this creative period - God created manKIND (Adam & Eve) and they were a Special Creation. They were given the attributes of God. THUS we are not animals.
"The term 'animal' was originally in Genesis over 3,000 years ago and it applied to certain creatures that were created on the sixth creative period (day)."
Yes, the word animal has multiple meanings. I might refer to "the difference between humans and animals" in a non-scientific sense. But biologically, there's no more reason to say that we're not part of the animal kingdom, then to there is to say that mice or bonobos aren't part of it. Are we also not vertibrates? Mammals? And WHY?
[1/3] The (simplified) scientific definition of animal is "a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall", just like vertibrates are "animals with backbones", and mammals are "warm-blooded animals with hair that feed milk to their young". Which of these are we NOT, and WHY NOT? What data supports your claims?
..... "Some say that the brain is the most complex structure in the universe," said Seung. "Right now it would be an incredible achievement just to find the connectome for a tiny animal like a fly." ++
Google:
Mapping the Most Complex Structure in the Universe: Your Brain
++ The net effect of all that neural "hand-to-hand combat" is what we call brain development, and it's what transforms a baby who can't walk, talk or operate a Blackberry into a modern, adult human being.
While connectomics researchers are very excited, they're still just getting a handle on mouse-sized brains. It could be a decade before data-crunching technology will be available to map the complexity of the human brain. .....
2) But you will notice as I do that most evolutionists love to portray humans as dirty animals thus bring manKIND down to prove their theory that humans descended from animals.
3) Scientists confirm our special we are (and thus our designer).
"evolutionists love to portray humans as dirty animals"
"dirty" animals? You mean less intelligent animals? What's wrong with dirt?
And what's wrong with descending from something dumber then ourselves? Are you ashamed of being a baby once? Babies poop themselves you know. Those babiologists (poeple who reject stork theory) just LOVE to portray human adults as having descended from babies so as to bring ADULTkind to their level!
Nowhere in the theory of evolution will you find an explanation of "why humans aren't special". You're arguing against a straw man that no one believes, and that's also irrelivant to science.
It's like when people rejected Einsteins theory of relativity because they thought it meant that morals are relative.
Science can make NO claim on anything philisophical, either positive OR negative.
++ "[1/3] The (simplified) scientific definition of animal is "a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall", just like vertibrates are "animals with backbones", and mammals are "warm-blooded animals with hair that feed milk to their young". Which of these are we NOT, and WHY NOT? What data supports your claims? ++
1) Yes we fall under the scientific meaning for animal.
[2/3] If you told a human doctor to operate on worm, they'd have a bit of difficulty. If you told them to operate on a carrot, they wouldn't know where to start. But when chimps in a zoo require surgery, they frequently call in human doctors. Why does this work? If humans aren't even part of the animal kingdom, let alone the sub groups of vertibrates, mammals, or primates, why is this even possible? And you didn't answer: what REASON do you have to say bonobos are animals, BUT humans aren't?
Re the carrot. Well evolutionists say cabbages have a heart.
Re the chimps. I think they would call in a vet.
If you look at most complex animals their internal organs are similar. Thus evidence for a Common Designer. The word animal has several means. But none of your animals worry about the day it is going to die, nor where did he allegedly descend from? Or who was his creator?
What the heck are you talking about, and what does it have to do with my point?
"If you look at most complex animals their internal organs are similar."
..and this explains why a human doctor can operate on a chimp with ease? Because our organs are similar to OTHER animals? What are you arguing for again?
"The word animal has several means."
Yes. I think I made it clear that I'm talking about the biological definition. Any other definition is outside of science.
2 / 2 It is this tremendous gap between the apes and manKIND that confirms that we did not descend from them but we are a Special Creation. There is no reason that manKIND via your theory of evolution to make humans have this tremendous gap between us and the apes. Natural Selection would have no need to give humans the special attributes to produce geniuses in so many varied fields.
"It is this tremendous gap between the apes and manKIND that confirms that we did not descend from them"
First of all, we DIDN'T descend from any species of ape that currently live. Secondly, as I've explained several times and you haven't refuted, we still are a type of ape, just as much as were mammals and vertibrates and part of the animal kingdom.
How much of a gap do 2 animals need to scientifically say that they COULD NOT have a common ancestor? Is it impossible for rats and mice, too?
....... But the research contradicts this idea, showing that unlike modern chimps ancient humans were not designed to climb trees. Dr Jeremy DeSilva, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, came to this view after carrying out the first ever study of the mechanics of chimpanzees' tree-climbing abilities, using a group of animals in the Kibale National Park of western Uganda. ++
Google:
Why our ancestors couldn't ape chimps, independent
Again with the quote mining. You're quoting an article talking about how humans evolved, and the common descent of humans and other apes, in order to prove that we didn't evolve and don't have a common ancestor? What?
All the article was about is that RECENT ancestors couldn't climb trees as well as was once hypothesized, based on the evidence. (notice how it uses evidence to come to conclusions) It says just as much about humans not being apes as it does about humans not being mammals.
++ "You're quoting an article talking about how humans evolved, and the common descent of humans and other apes, in order to prove that we didn't evolve and don't have a common ancestor? What?" ++
TALKING is not evidence. Of course ALL evolutionists believe in the theory of evolution but this does not put a bar on what certain evolutionists say about the alleged evidence.
Why do evolutionists hate quotes from evolutionists when it confirms there is a flaw in their theory?
"Why do evolutionists hate quotes from evolutionists when it confirms there is a flaw in their theory?"
Where did that article say there was a "flaw"? What the heck are you talking about? I explained why your quote was a quote mine. The article was only about how our RECENT ancestors were not as good at climbing trees as once thought. If your conclusion is that therefore we're not apes or don't have a common ancestor, then this is a COMPLETELY non-sequitar conclusion.
If I had claimed that "our recent ancestors were good at climbing trees", then your quote from an article saying "our recent ancestors were NOT good at climbing trees" would be completely appropriate. However I said nothing of the sort, and you weren't trying to prove anything of the sort. You were trying to prove that we don't share a common ancestor with other apes. What on Earth this has to do with recent humans not being as good at climbing trees as was once hypothesized.. I have no idea.
The article is discussing the period about 1.5 to 4.1 million years ago.
One could ask: Why have evolutionists waited 150 years to investigate this fact when they have argued that humans descended from a gorilla / chimp like creature?
Note that the quote says: ++ But the research contradicts this idea, showing that unlike modern chimps ANCIENT humans were not designed to climb trees. ++
THIS exactly agrees with the Bible. We were designed to live on the ground.
No matter how "ancient" a human is, they're still a human. Therefore it's still a lot more recent than ancestors so old that they wouldn't be classified as human. Ancient in human terms, but recent in total geological time.
"Why have evolutionists waited 150 years to investigate this fact"
So your argument is that it took too long for this research to be done? And therefore.. ?
"THIS exactly agrees with the Bible"
..that human ancestors lived millions of years ago?
++ "All the article was about is that RECENT ancestors couldn't climb trees as well as was once hypothesized, based on the evidence. (notice how it uses evidence to come to conclusions) It says just as much about humans not being apes as it does about humans not being mammals. ++
RECENT ancestors? Well scientists say the DNA evidence alleged humans were on the planet earth about 140,000 years ago.
..also we can still climb trees. Not as well as some apes, but we can. Also notice that IF some animal was going to evolve to use tools like us, it would HAVE TO be a type of ape. Apes climb, giving them hands that can grasp and opposable thumbs. As a result of this apes can use tools. Notice that non-human apes are better at using tools then any other non-human animal on the planet. If apes didn't have thumbs to climb trees, they couldn't use tools. Amazing coincidence that we have thumbs too?
....... Many experts have argued that this ancestor was probably quite chimpanzee-like, and as a result it has been widely assumed that the earliest humans were ape-like, too. .....
2) The morphological evidence confirms that we did not evolve from any type of alleged ape to the upset of evolutionists.
Quote:
++ The hominins lived between 1.5 and 4.1 million years ago, a relatively short time after proto-humans and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor (generally thought to have been between four and eight million years ago). ......
++ "First of all, we DIDN'T descend from any species of ape that currently live. Secondly, as I've explained several times and you haven't refuted, we still are a type of ape, just as much as were mammals and vertibrates and part of the animal kingdom." ++
1) We are still a type of ape because a man stated it was so. Thus not evidence but manufactured evidence.
"We are still a type of ape because a man stated it was so. Thus not evidence.."
Actually we were first classified as apes by a creationist. It's not "evidence", it's a definition. Are we not vertebrates because "a man" classified us as vertebrates? Words such as "ape", "vertebrate", "mammal", etc all have defined meanings. By the very definition of these words, we are all these things. Being smarter and having less hair is not enough to remove us as apes, just as it wont remove as vertebrates.
"But complex animals do have a brain and it is this brain that really sets us apart from other life-forms."
Yes, but it's not like the only things on Earth are humans with brains and non-living matter without. It's a gradual slope from brainless self replicating molecules, to simple organisms with a few brain cells, to things like flies with 100,000+ brain cells, to mice and dogs and chimps and finally humans. We have BIGGER brains than other life on this planet.
++ "2/3] If you told a human doctor to operate on worm, they'd have a bit of difficulty. If you told them to operate on a carrot, they wouldn't know where to start. But when chimps in a zoo require surgery, they frequently call in human doctors. Why does this work? ++
Re the worm. But the scientists say worms have 50% similar DNA to humans, thus the doctors should be half good if your DNA formula was correct ay?
"But the scientists say worms have 50% similar DNA to humans, thus the doctors should be half good if your DNA formula was correct ay?"
To some extent you're correct - we share very much DNA with chimps so human doctors can very easily operate. An animal with less similiary would be more difficult. Worms, very difficult, and something that's not even in the animal kingdom - impossible. It's a gradual difference. However some genes have larger effects than others, so you can't just go by DNA.
[3/3] "God created manKIND (Adam & Eve) and they were a Special Creation. They were given the attributes of God. THUS we are not animals."
I thought you said these "attributes" were spiritual or intelectual? Maybe I should be more clear - when I say "humans are part of the animal kingdom", I mean that biologically, our BODIES are. The only way it would matter is if God has a physical body, and looked like us before we did - a mammalian vertibrate primate, made for life in our physical universe?
God created all life with the function of the DNA / Gene process system. This is required to exist. Most evolutionists do not like to accept that we are a million miles apart from the animals.
Evolutionists say humans are animals for the one reason to add credence to their theory of evolution. But the evidence proves how wonderful the human body is ... a work of art and only produced by an Intelligent Designer.
"Most evolutionists do not like to accept that we are a million miles apart from the animals."
Again, although philisophically we might talk about "the difference between humans and animals", we are BY DEFINITION part of the animal kingdom, just as much as turtles are animals, or roses are plants.
If you claim that we are not, biologically, part of the animal kingdom, or mammals, or vertibrates, then please explain why this is true. I'm all ears. Same with last time I asked, weeks ago.
"But the evidence proves how wonderful the human body is"
See, being subjectively "wonderful" is not a criteria for not being part of the animal kingdom. Just as you can't remove roses from the plant kingdom because "they smell really nice", or remove hamsters from the animal kingdom because "they're really cute". You're confusing philosophy with science.
Also, aren't birds and kittens wonderful, too? So are they not animals, either?
++ "I thought you said these "attributes" were spiritual or intelectual? Maybe I should be more clear - when I say "humans are part of the animal kingdom", I mean that biologically, our BODIES are. The only way it would matter is if God has a physical body, and looked like us before we did - a mammalian vertibrate primate, made for life in our physical universe? ++
Most evolutionists to push their theory insist that manKIND are animals.
"Most evolutionists to push their theory insist that manKIND are animals."
I've explained several times, in quite some detail, why it's demonstrably true that we are part of the animal kingdom, and also vertibrates and mammals. I've asked you to say which of these claims are untrue, and why, and all you do is repeat the claim.
You know what the definition of animal is, and vertibrate, and mammal. I won't repeat it. Which of these are we not, and WHY not? And what data supports this claim?
No; nobody claims that. Bats have thin bones and don't fossilize well, so there's no consensus on their evolution. Don't make things up. But if you need to see how it would be advantagious to "almost fly", look at a flying squirrel.
You know what WOULD be evidence for your claim? If bats had wings on their back, and still had front paws. Since evolution can only modify what already exists, only the current bats can be explained by evolution.
..... Investigating embryonic development, we found that the digits in bats (Carollia perspicillata) are initially similar in size to those of mice (Mus musculus) but that, subsequently, bat digits greatly lengthen. ++
Google:
Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits, pubmedcentral
..... We found that the lengths of the third, fourth, and fifth digits (the primary supportive elements of the wing) have remained constant relative to body size over the last 50 million years. This absence of transitional forms in the fossil record led us to look elsewhere to understand bat wing evolution. .....
Please have a look at this scientific paper that says it was your alleged mice - AND evidence that bats were created as BATS!
Quote:
++ The earliest fossil bats resemble their modern counterparts in possessing greatly elongated digits to support the wing membrane, which is an anatomical hallmark of powered flight. To quantitatively confirm these similarities, we performed a morphometric analysis of wing bones from fossil and modern bats. .....
Ah, quote mining. You mean the one that says this?:
"There is a general consensus that the common ancestor of bats was a small, quadrupedal mammal, with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice"
Having a limb morphology similar to mice is not the same as "being a mouse". They also mention the relative lack of fossils for bats, just as would be expected for small animals like this. So again, no one claims bats are evolved from mice.
++ Ah, quote mining. You mean the one that says this?:
"There is a general consensus that the common ancestor of bats was a small, quadrupedal mammal, with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice" ++
THINK. Since what day did having a general consensus mean anything? This means there is no evidence but the majority hope.
"Since what day did having a general consensus mean anything? This means there is no evidence but the majority hope."
*facepalm*
That quote was not to "prove that bats are evolved from an ancestor". It was a response to your untrue claim that "scientists think bats evolved from mice". The very article that you quote-mined to prove your claim, also showed it was false. Unlike some other species, there is limited knowledge on bats, so they did studies based on LIKELY morphology of an ancestor.
Plus to confirm the deception the authors of the paper then put forward evidence relating to mice, thus it is a double deception all based on zero evidence.
That is why the theory of evolution is not science but science fiction... Just wishful thinking.
++ Having a limb morphology similar to mice is not the same as "being a mouse". They also mention the relative lack of fossils for bats, just as would be expected for small animals like this. So again, no one claims bats are evolved from mice. ++
But with zero evidence and by deception they allege that: The common ancestor of bats was a small, quadruped mammal, with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice"
I do not blame you for denying that evolutionists contend that bats descended from mice. It is absolutely madness to believe that over a vast period of time mice had to carry part-wings around with them for a few millions of years while the wings grew and they learnt how to fly. It would have been a burden when a predator was after them.
"It is absolutely madness to believe that over a vast period of time mice had to carry part-wings around with them.."
..the fuck? "Part wings"? You mean like flying squirrels? If bats had wings on their backs, you'd actually have a point. But they DON'T. The only kind of bats which can be explained by evolution, are the ones that exist.
++ Instead, its skeleton more closely resembles those of a still-living lineage known as old world fruit bats, which do not echolocate. (Those bats eat fruit or flower nectar, not insects, and thus perhaps have less need for tracking fast-moving objects.) ++
Google:
Primitive Bats Took to the Wing, but They Didnt Have That Ping, nytimes
Then you argue ... no fossils to prove your theory because they were small animals.
But the evidence is the fossil that has been discovered allegedly 50 plus million years old is similar to a present modern bat. Thus all the evidence points to special creation.
THE fossil? If you're trying to claim that bats do in fact fossilize well despite their tiny bones, shouldn't you be refferencing "the thousands of fossils"? Oh wait, there aren't any. Because.. they're bats.
And the absence of evidence isn't the same as positive evidence or negative evidence for ANY conclusion - it's a LACK of evidence.
An example of negative evidence for evolution would be if bats had wings on their backs.
........ where the evidence is for all these alleged intermediate transitional fossils which for some reason do not exist.
And you do not like to explain how this alleged creature managed to live millions of years carrying around with it part-wings. You act as if this miracle happened overnight and the creature went from running around the ground to the sky just like that. He had two problems. He did not have wings and he could not fly.
What theory?? All I've done is respond to your claims that it's "impossible". I would never claim that the evolution of bats has been demonstrated, because it has NOT been. Same with boneless animals. Is the lack of jellyfish fossils also "evidence for creationism"? Or maybe it's evidence for Raelians who think that aliens created life.
"And you do not like to explain how this alleged creature managed to live millions of years carrying around with it part-wings."
O. M. F. G. :|
How many times do I have to refference "flying squirrels" as an example of a tree-climbing rodent with "part wings", which is neither ground based nor fully airborne? Are flying squirrels impossible to exist? They have "part wings" - a slight modification of their arms - just like bats have "full wings" - a large modification of their arms.
++ "Part wings"? You mean like flying squirrels? If bats had wings on their backs, you'd actually have a point. But they DON'T. The only kind of bats which can be explained by evolution, are the ones that exist. ++
I find it strange that you argue that bats descended from: A creature with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice ... But get shocked to explain .....
++ " Evolutionists claim that a population of mice.."
No; nobody claims that. Bats have thin bones and don't fossilize well, so there's no consensus on their evolution. Don't make things up. But if you need to see how it would be advantagious to "almost fly", look at a flying squirrel. ++
That is strange plenty of other fossils about that confirm animals were created but the ones that are required to support the theory of evolution are all missing.
"the ones that are required to support the theory of evolution are all missing."
You're kidding, right? There are many thousands of transitional fossils, some of the most well known being for whales, humans, elephants, horses, and the transition from fish to amphibian. Certain things don't fossilize well - jellyfish, things with thin bones like bats, etc. Do you seriously expect that fossils should be found for these? How does this effect the things we do have fossils for?
** "But from the DEFINITION of mammals, we are mammals, just as we are vertibrates, animals, and apes. Which of these claims is untrue, and why?" **
The name mammal and vertebrate are names to show that certain life forms have certain common features. Evolutionists have also given certain meanings to the name animal and ape.
(continued)
2 / 2
Thus there is no right or wrong. If evolutionists for the reason to add credence to their theory ......
No; most of these terms come from before we learned of evolution. Evolution just helped it to make sense.
Do you think that without evolution, we wouldn't classify trees as plants, and rabbits as animals? A vertibrate is an animal WITH A VERTIBRAE - that's as simply as you can get. We're animals, we're mammals, and we're vertibrates. We were actually originally classified as apes by a creationist, because BY DEFINITION, that's what we are.
2) Thus anyone with commonsense would immediately understand that it cannot mean physical abilities but attributes. Your remark confirms that when an evolutionist has a lead like a bloodhound he will follow the scent even if it leads over the cliff.
3) A mother may say: Jimmy is exactly like his father he is humble, patient intelligent and loving. But because atheists and evolutionists are biased they argue: Being like God can only mean physically.
"Thus anyone with commonsense would immediately understand that it cannot mean physical abilities but attributes."
You said that "we're not apes, we're made in God's image". Gods image was an alternative to being apes. If we're talking attributes, it doesn't matter what our bodies are. Our bodies could be lizards or worms and it wouldn't contradict "God's image", if "image" refers to something non-material.
God gave manKIND the wonderful benefit of the human brain and the ability to have free choice. Humans were to cultivate the planet Earth and look after the animals this would have been impossible if humans were lizards or worms. See Genesis 1: 27-28.
** "If we're talking attributes, it doesn't matter what our bodies are. Our bodies could be lizards or worms and it wouldn't contradict "God's image", if "image" refers to something non-material." **
Well if we were made in Gods image and had his attributes we could not be like lizards or worms.
"Well if we were made in Gods image and had his attributes we could not be like lizards or worms."
You just said these attributes are spiritual in nature. So it doesn't matter if we're reptiles, mammals, or amphibians. It doesn't matter if our bodies are lizards, worms or apes. It's just a body. Presumably God does not have a physical body and is not a kind of animal. There's no reason a giant lizard couldn't have been given our intellect instead of an ape. (maybe thumbs would help too)
** "Wait, so God has a physical form? An "image"? God looked like us before we did? That's as silly as a sentient grasshopper telling us that the creator of the universe is a grasshopper, and in fact was a grasshopper before grasshoppers existed. You'd ask what God's wings and mandibles are for, eh? Well, what are God's eyes and bones large intestine and toes for? Why is God a primate? That's ridiculous." **
Thus they recognize that creatures outside this zone cannot reproduce. This zone can be in the wild or in the laboratory.
1) Thus this is evidence that there is a mechanism in place that stops creatures outside the Hybrid zone from reproducing.
2) If we never had this mechanism in place life would be complete disorder. Thus it is further evidence that God is the creator, and that God patented the fact of KIND in black & white as recorded at Genesis 1:12.
"..there is a mechanism in place that stops creatures outside the Hybrid zone from reproducing."
Wait, so are you talking about SPECIES or KINDS? Animals outside this "hybrid zone" are called "different species", but you know very well that speciation is an observed fact. It's not a "mechanism", it's a level of difference. If 2 creatures have sufficiently different genetics, they can not interbreed naturally, and we call them "species".
..... of the population, with various intermediate forms making up another small fraction [3]. This rapid evolution is thought to be possible through genetic variations that confer competitive advantages for survival in freshwater when conditions shift rapidly from salt to freshwater. However, the actual molecular basis of this evolution still remains unknown.
..... pelvic hind fins, gain tougher bony armor in their scales, and lighten in color as they adapt to life in fresh water.
In 1982, a chemical eradication program at Loberg Lake, Alaska, killed the resident freshwater populations of sticklebacks. Oceanic sticklebacks were introduced and colonized the lake. In just 12 years beginning in 1990, the frequency of the oceanic form dropped steadily, from 100% to 11%, while a variety with fewer plates increased to 75% ....
all these shows is that evolutionists will always find a way to explain the evidance away. but the fact is that nether the fossil record nor DNA show that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor. ¿is there any evidance that we share an ansestor with microbes?
Answerquestions1 2 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Yes, there is an extrodinary amount of evidence. If you need help finding it and you are wanting to know more, please tell me and I will gladly go through it with you in detail. Information can be found by reading the wikipedia article on the topic "Evidence of common decent", particularly the section titled "Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns".
jasonlpsmith 1 month ago
@jasonlpsmith
ok, what evidance shows that microbes and any multicelular organism share a common ancestor?
Answerquestions1 1 month ago
@Answerquestions1 Paraphrased from Wikipedia article "Evidence of common descent”. All known organisms are based on the same biochemical structure. Genetic information is coded in DNA (or RNA in some viruses), the DNA is transcribed to RNA and translated into proteins by ribosomes. The genetic code translates to the same amino acids for almost every organism. Bacteria DNA inserted into a human codes for the same amino acids. For further info Google "Part 4 Molecular Sequence Evidence talkorigins
jasonlpsmith 1 month ago
i have to jump on this Darwin was wrong and creationist too . there is a 3rd more complete theory state were life can live the universe manifests it. light waves and microwave can transfer information about one living being to another living being ,to have a baby not like its self .
greenearthnazi20204u 5 months ago in playlist More videos from jasonlpsmith
You now have to use waybackmachine to get an archive of the article New Scientist released (or be a subscriber).
karamarouge seems to have missed the point of the article. Evolution is not being disputed. However the concept of the tree of life has been found to be an oversimplification for some applications, but is still a reasonable model for a simple explanation.
jasonlpsmith 6 months ago
This video is bad propaganda from some one who didnt read the article he is talking about. THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE READ THE ARTICLE AND COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THE AUTHOR DID!
Darwin was indeed way off base and this is in no way similar to revision of newtonian physics.. I will post some quotes from scientists cited in the article
karamarouge 1 year ago
"Dagan dubbed Bork's
result "the tree of 1 per cent" and argued that the study
inadvertently provided some of the best evidence yet that the
tree-of-life concept was redundant"
this is reference to the tree shown in the video.
Author also deceives audience that horizontal gene transfer is the only issue...
karamarouge 1 year ago
It would be perverse to claim
that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because
multicellular life evolved that way. "If there is a tree of life,
it's a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life,"
says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of
Exeter, UK.
THAT IS A GOOD AS CALLING DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE " WRONG".. that couldnt be much clearer to even the dumbest fool on earth
karamarouge 1 year ago
"More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of
animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either. "There are
problems even in that little corner," says Dupré. Having uprooted
the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes
to the remaining branches."
LOL..Not only is the core of the concept wrong the entire concept is being savaged by scientists not creationists or bible thumpers
karamarouge 1 year ago
"According to Loren Rieseberg, a botanist at the
University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, around 14 per
cent of living plant species are the product of the fusion of two
separate lineages."
Fusion was no where in Darwin's simple mind. And thus proposed an idea of a tree of life that is indeed WRONG!
karamarouge 1 year ago
evolutionary scientists say we came from the primodial soup in the sea ,and through evolutionary process ,we started out as a fish.....and progressed to be a Amphibian,then a Reptile ,then a Bird ,then a Mammal,then a Human ..why is it people who lose limbs dont grow them back? like the amphibian ..why cant we fly ...why is a gorrila 10 times stronger than us ,i wanna know were is the fossil record to show the in between off the species above?
Frankyre1972 1 year ago
So far, 3 creationists have watched this video.
aquariussphere 1 year ago
Darwin's theory falls, from one simple reason:
There's no single human bone in
so called "Pre-Human Fosil Record" (check for your self).
Also: there are footprints in volcanic ash cement
4 million yrs old, showing that: 2 primates walked
there UPRIGHT, at that time, (those prints are just discovered,
so it was 2 legs only walk system ALREADY at that time).
(Sorry Darwin, but it had to break out some day).
oztronix 1 year ago
Actually, there's a contradiction in fossil records and Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory of natural selection is every organism requires a prior ancestral form. But even Darwin admits that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata is devoid of any evidence of such creatures. How, then, did these vast and inexplicably new species suddenly appear out of nowhere?
TheVodkaHaze 2 years ago
Before the Cambrian period is the Ediacaran period. There are many multi-cellular soft-bodied fossils from this era preserved in pre-Cambrian rock in Australia.
I have seen it personally for myself in strata in the Flinders Ranges, Australia. Stromatolites (colonies of cyanobacteria) from 630Ma, Dickensona from 550Ma (Ediacaran), achaeocyaths from 530Ma, molluscs from 520Ma.
Wikipedia "Ediacaran Biota" to find out more.
jasonlpsmith 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
jasonlpsmith @
++ "Before the Cambrian period is the Ediacaran period. There are many multi-cellular soft-bodied fossils from this era preserved in pre-Cambrian rock in Australia." ++
In science the response ... MANY means ... We have not got a clue?
hume1947 2 years ago
what if we just havent found it? im purely not convinced we have uncovered all
mjqueen6908 1 year ago
"Darwin admits that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata is devoid of any evidence of such creatures"
Darwin died in 1882. In the intervening 128 years, don't you think our collection of fossils has grown considerably?
fkbryce 1 year ago
1 / 3
Flyborg @
** " There's no consensus if Neanderthal was a sub-species or a species. In any case, if they could interbreed, that would make them the same species. But according to your new definition of "kind", which is exactly the same as the definition of "species",
1) Darwin used KINDS as his definition for species. But the present evolutionists ignore Darwin on this matter and we have the (Goggle) Species problem, wikipedia.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"But the present evolutionists ignore Darwin"
Yay, you understand that Darwin is not the king of evolution, and what he says has absolutely no merrit on the truth of any claim.
"Darwin used KINDS as his definition for species."
So.. are you saying it IS the same as species, or ISN'T?
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 3
2) Upon reading the following you will agree that we are the same KIND with the Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
Quote:
++ Hybrid humans
Some researchers are also convinced that hybridisation has been a major driving force in animal evolution (see "Natural born chimeras", and "Two into one"), and that the process is ongoing. "It is really common," says James Mallet, an evolutionary biologist at University College London. "Ten per cent of all animals regularly .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
I cant believe youre using the absence of a species barrier as evidence that there is some OTHER barrier which you still refuse to either define or explain the mechanics of.
"Ten per cent of all animals regularly hybridise with other species"
Thats your quote, not mine. If different species can hybridize, and theres no permanent barrier between species, and if "kind" only means the ability to interbreed under any circumstances (including outside species), than everything on Earth is one kind.
Flyborg 2 years ago
3 / 3
..... hybridise with other species." This is especially true in rapidly evolving lineages with lots of recently diverged species - including our own. There is evidence that early modern humans hybridised with our extinct relatives, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 363, p 2813). ++
Google:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, new scientist
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 3
Flyborg :
** " Look up "ring species". There is no barrier. This is nothing but baseless speculation, contradicted by evidence. **
Your theory which relates to Ring species does not support your Modern Evolutionary SynthesiS (MESS). In certain KINDs God has given the creatures the opportunity for great variety. We see this in the dog KIND the cat KIND and manKIND.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"We see this in the dog KIND the cat KIND and manKIND."
Dogs, cats and humans are species, not kinds. Unless by cats you meant feline? In which case cats, lions and pumas are the same "kind"? And by human you meant primate, in which humans, chimps, and gorillas are the same "kind"? ..
You STILL refuse to define the word kind. WHY?
---> What is a "kind", and what is the barrier between "kinds"?
Here's more info on species and why your claim of a "barrier"is nonsense:
watch?v=rb5OEw_q-II
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
For example of manKIND we have Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and the present 7 million Adam & Eve lookalikes who reside on the planet Earth. The term primate is relevantly only a new name given to humans and cannot be used as evidence for the theory of evolution or against it.
hume1947 2 years ago
How have you determined that neanderthals are a "kind" of "man", but chimpanzees aren't?
By the definition of ape, we're both apes, just as we're both mammals, both vertibrates, and both part of the animal kingdom. These are all true by definition. So why aren't we both "man"? Are chimps and gorillas the same kind? Or are they different kinds as well? AND by what method do you deterimine the answer to this question? (If kind has a definition, as you claim.. but still refuse to say it)
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "How have you determined that neanderthals are a "kind" of "man", but chimpanzees aren't?" **
From the KINDS definition I have provided - you will see that Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are all manKIND.
Scientists presently agree that these three can and did interbreed with each other - THUS they are of the same KIND.
It is impossible for a chimp or any alleged Last Common Ancestor to be part of manKIND.
hume1947 2 years ago
"Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are all manKIND."
There's no consensus if Neanderthal was a sub-species or a species. In any case, if they could interbreed, that would make them the same species. But according to your new definition of "kind", which is exactly the same as the definition of "species", this is no problem, as speciation is an observed fact.
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
** "We see this in the dog KIND the cat KIND and manKIND."
Dogs, cats and humans are species, not kinds. Unless by cats you meant feline? In which case cats, lions and pumas are the same "kind"? And by human you meant primate, in which humans, chimps, and gorillas are the same "kind"? ..**
Please note I said manKIND.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 3
Now evolutionists because of zero evidence for their theory and despair over their understanding of the meaning of species (Google: Species problem, wikipedia) to muddy the clear water argue that: Ring species supports their theory. If evolutionists do not understand something they say: It supports our theory.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
3 / 3
When the idea is fully investigated like your alleged TREE OF LIFE - it is ditched and forgotten and the fact there was never any evidence in the first place is buried with the TREE. The Ring species and your alleged TREE OF LIFE have millions of peer review papers, essays and books produced on the subjects ALL false evidence to give the impression that you have the empiric evidence but when we look the spades are out burying the alleged evidence quickly.
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
** Either define "kind", or stop using it. **
Over three thousand years prior to modern science God in his word the Bible in Genesis 1:12 expressly stated his Law regarding KINDS. God thus claimed the patent on KINDS in black & white. KIND has stood the test of time and has proven to be correct whereas evolutionists are in complete disarray with their species. Google: Species problem, wikipedia.
hume1947 2 years ago
"Define kind"
"Alright: things can only produce their own kind. Hah! Proof."
I'm STILL waiting for a definition of what a kind is. Not an example. I could say "horses and rabbits are the same kind". A definition please. Also, explain what the barrier is. We know that the large changes seen in the fossil record should not be observed until we're on the Earth for a very very long time, but why do you think they're IMPOSSIBLE? Is this just a religous belief, or do you claim scientific evidence?
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
God's Law on KINDS has never been broken in the long past - right through to the last 10,000 years. Evolutionists feeble attempts to come up with a 101 little theories confirm they have zero evidence i.e. speciation, genetic drift AND their failed experiments.
Quote:
Most animal testing involves invertebrates, especially Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode.
Google:
Animal testing on invertebrates, wikipedia
hume1947 2 years ago
"God's Law on KINDS has never been broken"
You can't even CLAIM that a "law" exists if your claim hinges on a word which you STILL refuse to define. "Kind" is not a scientific word and has no definition. Your claim can't even be evaluated until it uses words that actually mean something.
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
** "I could say "horses and rabbits are the same kind". A definition please."
Please see Genesis1:12.
I have previously explained it - plus given you examples. I can see that God's Law on KINDS is the substantial difference between your theory of evolution and creation by an Intelligent Designer - God.
Gods Law on KINDS confirms that your theory of evolution is flawed and impossible.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Please see Genesis1:12."
How does that refute my claim that horses and rabbits are the same kind? Please see MY example of what a kind is, previous post. I'll even quote:
"Horses and rabbits are the same kind"
That's MY law of kinds. What is it that makes horses the same kind as rabbits, but not the same kind as tapirs? I refuse to explain. What makes chickens the same kind as crows, but not the same kind as velociraptors? You refuse to explain. Neither your nor my example defined the word.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
Genesis 1:12 KJV
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
THUS this is complete proof that the Modern Evolutionary SynthesiS (MESS) is absolutely impossible.
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 3
Flyborg @
Re: The Blind Cave Fish.
** "Hm? Millions of years? How would we know exactly how long it took to lose its eyesight? That doesn't even seem like a huge mutation. And it's not "evidence" for evolution, it's just an example of a vestigial structure." **
I am surprised you say: "And it's not "evidence" for evolution, it's just an example of a vestigial structure."
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 3
Quote:
Blind cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus) can sense light when young, even though their eyes lost their function over a million years of evolution. Scientists have found that the fish larvae can detect an overhead shadow and seek shelter by swimming towards it.
Google:
Blind fish see shadows, nature
hume1947 2 years ago
3 / 3
Quotes:
Quantitative genetic analyses have shown that the evolutionary impairment of eye development — as well as the loss of pigmentation and other cave-related changes — results from mutations at multiple gene sites (eye loci)
Here we demonstrate restoration of vision in cavefish whose immediate ancestors were blind and whose separate lineages may not have been exposed to light for the last one million years.
Google: Restoring sight in blind cave fish, biology
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 4
Flyborg @
** "Also I'm not entirely sure what that sentence means. Evolution happens. Creationists normally admit this, because it's directly observed and obvious. They claim there's a limit, but a limit starting where, and ending where, and based on what data? .. So, in order to avoid saying "there's a limit", because that claim is baseless speculation, they incorrectly use the word "macro evolution" to describe.. I don't know what." **
Evolution' only means 'change'.
(cont)
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 4
THE LIMIT. God has placed a limit on the reproduction seed as recorded in Genesis 1:12. If this law was not in place life would be in chaos. But when we look at all the animals and manKIND they all look as if they were specially created.
Evolutionists have carried out millions of experiments in an attempt to get around Gods law on KINDS. Every attempt has failed. You ask: But a limit starting where, and ending where, and based on what data?
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Evolutionists have carried out millions of experiments in an attempt to get around Gods law on KINDS."
Are you kidding me? The word "kind" has no scientific meaning. It only comes from the Bible, which describes bats as a "kind" of bird.
First give the meaing of the word kind, and THEN claim that people are trying to "get around" this meaningless word.
How can you claim that kinds exist, if you don't know what a kind is?
Blarg exists. Prove that blarg doesn't exist.
Flyborg 2 years ago
"Evolutionists have carried out millions of experiments in an attempt to get around Gods law on KINDS"
I'll give you an equally nonsensical statement.
"Gravitonians have carried out 12.4 billion experiments in an attempt to get around Yahweh's law of BLARG. Every attempt at proving the theory of gravity has failed. They can't get around Yahweh's law of BLARG.. which is.. you know, that thing I refuse to define, and scientists (gravitonians) don't even know exists."
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "Gravitonians have carried out 12.4 billion experiments in an attempt to get around Yahweh's law of BLARG. Every attempt at proving the theory of gravity has failed. They can't get around Yahweh's law of BLARG.." **
Strangely enough - you are correct. They have carries out numerous experiments to get around Yahweh's law of gravity - they failed and now God's law of gravity is accepted by all as FACT.
But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is another kettle of blind cave fish.
hume1947 2 years ago
"they failed and now God's law of gravity is accepted by all as FACT"
Wait, so are you actually just being a troll? Because that's the most nonsensical thing I've heard in a while, on so many levels. If you're just trying to be a parody of creationists, there's no real point in responding.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "they failed and now God's law of gravity is accepted by all as FACT"
Wait, so are you actually just being a troll? Because that's the most nonsensical thing I've heard in a while, on so many levels. **
I am not a troll. Do you not accept that 'gravity is accepted as fact? When you turn your tap on - the water goes down.
hume1947 2 years ago
What does that have to do with what you said?
You mentioned something called "Yahwehs law of gravity", and claimed that scientists have attempted to "get around it". What the heck is this referring to?
The fact that things fall has never been not-accepted. It's one of the many observations explained by the theory of gravity. Your comment still makes no sense.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
You mentioned something called "Yahwehs law of gravity", and claimed that scientists have attempted to "get around it". What the heck is this referring to?
Lets see who really said WHAT? You said:
Yahweh's law of BLARG. Every attempt at proving the theory of gravity has failed. REMEMBER?
hume1947 2 years ago
..yes.. that was a parody of your ridiculous statement about "kinds", instead using another undefined word, "blarg".
You then replied by saying talking about Yahweh's law of gravity, saying that it was "true" that scientists had attempted to "get around" this thing.
Flyborg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Flyborg @
You mentioned something called "Yahwehs law of gravity", and claimed that scientists have attempted to "get around it". What the heck is this referring to? ........... Your comment still makes no sense. **
Have you never heard that over the past millennium that man has tried to fly?
hume1947 2 years ago
"Have you never heard that over the past millennium that man has tried to fly?"
..are you trying to be as vague as possible? How does humans flying relate to you making claims using words that have no definition? This has gone from nonsensical to whatever you call the nonsensical version of nonsense.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "are you trying to be as vague as possible? How does humans flying relate to you making claims using words that have no definition?" **
What words? The main word that I know that is not defined is the evolutionists word for species. At one time - everyone agreed with Charles Darwin that 'species' was the Bible stated 'KINDS'.
But over the last 150 years there is total confusion by what does an evolutionist mean by species.
Google: Species problem
hume1947 2 years ago
[species 1/3]
Species was once used to refer to any identifiable group of animals, as we didn't know of a whole lot of groups. Eventually it gained the more rigorous definition of a group in which the members can all interbreed. Although even this is not a perfect definition, because the species barrier is not absolute, and sometimes closely related species can interbreed with various levels of success.
Flyborg 2 years ago
[species 2/3]
It's ironic that you'd cite the problem of identifying species, as the reason it's a problem is due to the absence of a barrier between them.. it's a fuzzy line. The difference between one species and another is not quantitative but qualitative. Look up "ring species". There is no barrier. This is nothing but baseless speculation, contradicted by evidence.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Whoops, I meant "not qualitative, but quantitative".. It's not the difference between the colour blue and the concept of happiness, but the differerence between the number 37 and the number 45. Different quantity, not quality. Or, in the case of biology, different degrees of genetic similarity. Not different "types" or "kinds".)
Flyborg 2 years ago
[species 3/3]
Currently the word "species" is the only scientific classification of animals which is not entirely invented by humans for convenience.
If you want to use the word "kind" instead, you'd better say what it MEANS. Kind is currently used as species was once used; as a layman's non-precise definition of an identifiable group, without any definition. If you're using your religion as a source, than the Bible classifies bats as a "kind" of bird. There's also no definition there, either.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "Evolutionists have carried out millions of experiments in an attempt to get around Gods law on KINDS"
I'll give you an equally nonsensical statement. **
Do you deny that evolutionists have firstly carried out millions of experiments relating to obtaining changes to a particular 'species'?
Do you agree that every one of these experiments has failed and that no new species has been produced that is a completely different species?
You cannot break through the KINDS barrier.
hume1947 2 years ago
"Do you deny that evolutionists have firstly carried out millions of experiments relating to obtaining changes to a particular 'species'?"
Aha! So you admit it means species. I don't know how many "experiments" there have been, although I do know that speciation is an observed fact, both natural and in experiments, the most famous probably being with fruit flies being fed 2 different foods until they speciate.
Flyborg 2 years ago
3 / 3
Speciation is not an observed fact. You give the game away when you allege that fruit flies eating 2 different foods until they speciate. What into? Yes fruit flies.
Your alleged speciation is just the normal DNA gene process system that God created. This is also patented by God.
hume1947 2 years ago
"fruit flies eating 2 different foods until they speciate. What into? Yes fruit flies."
I have to resist saying "are you kidding" in every post. What's a fruit fly? A name we've given to a group of organisms. If the change was larger, you could say "still a fly - not a fruit fly, but a fly". Maybe "it's still an insect"? It speciated, according to the definition of species. If you want to say that some OTHER change is impossible, for the love of God, just make your claim instead of implying it.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 3
I state the word 'species' does not mean I am saying it relates to 'KINDS'. I was just asking you a question using a word that hopefully you would understand so that I could debate the matter on a better understanding.
If you Google: Species problem, wikipedia - you will note that evolutionists have dozens of ideas for the meaning of species.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"evolutionists have dozens of ideas for the meaning of species"
The word "species" used to have no defined meaning, sort of like "kind". It's obvious to most people that there are different "kinds" or "types" of animals, but there was no real definition until pretty recently. Just because the absence of an unbreakable barrier between species makes it impossible to perfectly define them, does not mean that the word is useless. Again (for like the 20th time), if you have a better word, define it.
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 3
Flyborg @
** "Do you deny that evolutionists have firstly carried out millions of experiments relating to obtaining changes to a particular 'species'?"
Aha! So you admit it means species. I don't know how many "experiments" there have been, although I do know that speciation is an observed fact, both natural and in experiments, the most famous probably being with fruit flies being fed 2 different foods until they speciate. **
Just because .................
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Do you agree that every one of these experiments has failed"
Ignorance of the evidence is not the same as an argument against it.
"You cannot break through the KINDS barrier."
That's like saying it's impossible to leave the Earth because we haven't done it yet.. even though we have.
Not only is speciation an observed fact, but you haven't stated what this barrier is, how it works, or what data supports it's existance. What is the mechanism of this barrier?
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
The barrier is what evolutionists have been attempting to do for centuries. You cannot get one species to change into a completely different species. You mentioned your fruit flies. After millions of experiments based over numerous generations all the millions upon millions of fruit flies were still FRUIT FLIES.
THUS the data is every experiment and natural reproduction carried out over the last 8,000 years.
God designed the mechanism and has the patent see Genesis 1:12.
hume1947 2 years ago
Basically you're saying that a stalictite can't grow from 1mm to 15,000mm because we've only observed it growing from 14,900mm to 15,000 over the 100 years we've observed it grow (1mm/year). And also, your holy book lists 30mm stalictites as one "kind", 3000mm ones as another, 15000mm stalictites as yet another, without defining exactly what the word "kind" means.
Again, if you wanted to say it's impossible for a 3mm "kind" to turn into a 300mm "kind" I'd ask 2 things:
1) Why?
2) What's a kind?
Flyborg 2 years ago
[cont]
And for #2, I'd want a definition, not an example, such as "3mm is a kind and 300mm is a kind".
For #1, I'd want a physical limitation, not "my scipture says so according to my interpretation". What DATA supports that a 3mm can't turn into a 300mm? The absence of it being directly observed?
(replace 3mm with "the fish king" and 300mm with "the frog kind" to see how this relates to your non-answers)
Flyborg 2 years ago
lol "the fish king". Obviously I meant "the fish kind". >_>
Flyborg 2 years ago
4 / 4
5) Your alleged speciation is just the normal God created process of reproduction carried out between the KIND by means of the DNA gene process.
6) Just because a particular bacterium carries out its normal function for which it was created to eat waste and then changes its food source it remains a bacterium But because you have zero evidence evolutionists cry out falsely: A new species.
hume1947 2 years ago
3 / 4
3) If offspring from the Hybrid creatures are not sterile they are of the same KIND. If the offspring are sterile they are on the limitations of that KIND.
4) With regards to limits within your theory of evolution it proves that your theory is totally flawed. A dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird. A rat-like creature can evolve into an ape. And an ape cannot evolve into a human. ManKIND was specially created by God in his likeness with Gods attributes.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"If offspring from the Hybrid creatures are not sterile they are of the same KIND. If the offspring are sterile they are on the limitations of that KIND."
Umm, that's the definition of species. You just replaced it with "kind".
FOR THE LAST TIME: If the word "kind" means something different that species, DEFINE IT.
STOP USING a word with no definition. Examples of a kind is not the same as defining the word.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "If offspring from the Hybrid creatures are not sterile they are of the same KIND. If the offspring are sterile they are on the limitations of that KIND."
Umm, that's the definition of species. You just replaced it with "kind". FOR THE LAST TIME: If the word "kind" means something different that species, DEFINE IT. **
That was the same definition as believed by Darwin. You have zero evidence to support your ToE and have changed your meaning of species. KIND has a limitation.
hume1947 2 years ago
"A dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird."
Ironically some of the transitionals between dino/bird are so close, that some biologists think birds should be classified as a sub-order of dinosaurs. Compare a chicken skeleton with a velociraptor skeleton.
"And an ape cannot evolve into a human."
For more irony, "ape" is not a species, but a family. Humans, chimps and gorillas are all part of this family. The only reason to say that we're not is if you're offended by the idea.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "A dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird."
Ironically some of the transitionals between dino/bird are so close, that some biologists think birds should be classified as a sub-order of dinosaurs. Compare a chicken skeleton with a velociraptor skeleton. **
The morphological evidence carried out by evolutionists over the last 150 years has been one big story of error after error.
Tremendous errors caused because they put what they want to be the case above the facts & evidence.
hume1947 2 years ago
"Tremendous errors caused because they put what they want to be the case above the facts & evidence. "
You should be arrested by the irony police.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
But God has equalised it out by allowing these alleged geniuses to be very gullible if they get too big for their fossils.
Some joke got out of hand and was misheard by a deaf evolutionist and suddenly the majority of evolutionists believe the impossible that because birds and dinosaurs lay eggs - Birds must have descended from dinosaurs.
Google:
Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds, sciencedaily
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
** "Tremendous errors caused because they put what they want to be the case above the facts & evidence."
You should be arrested by the irony police. **
Everyone loves dinosaurs - but that is no excuse to think of the most impossible idea and produce a theory to back up impossibility.
That is one thing great about God - he also has a sense of humour - which can be seen by his beautiful animals. Plus, he has given the power for manKIND to become a genius.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"ManKIND was specially created by God in his likeness with Gods attributes."
Wait, so God has a physical form? An "image"? God looked like us before we did? That's as silly as a sentient grasshopper telling us that the creator of the universe is a grasshopper, and in fact was a grasshopper before grasshoppers existed. You'd ask what God's wings and mandibles are for, eh? Well, what are God's eyes and bones large intestine and toes for? Why is God a primate? That's ridiculous.
Flyborg 2 years ago
3 / 3
4) Evolutionists want to be as much like animals as possible and do not want to accept that we are a special creation supremely different from the animals in that we have the special attributes given to manKIND by God Love, Power, Justice & Wisdom.
hume1947 2 years ago
"Evolutionists want to be as much like animals as possible"
Biologically, we are part of the animal kingdom just as much as we're mammals. Do you deny that we're mammals, or part of the animal kingdom?
Philisophically, I wouldn't say we're animals, but science can make no claim on this.
And no, SCIENTISTS don't "want" anything; the goal of the scientific method is to increase knowledge of the natural world, NO MATTER WHAT the conclusion is, REGARDLESS of if you like it.
Also; irony.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "Biologically, we are part of the animal kingdom just as much as we're mammals. Do you deny that we're mammals, or part of the animal kingdom?
The word mammal has a certain manmade definition which includes humans. This gives no evidence to support your theory of evolution.
Arguing that we are made of the same elements as the animals etc again does not support your theory because this is evidence of intelligent design by a Creator.
hume1947 2 years ago
"mammal has a certain manmade definition which includes humans. This gives no evidence.."
I was not using it as evidence. All classification above "species" is just for human convenience. The fact that we can classify things into major groups, which can then be easily classified into smaller and smaller groups, leading to species, is another story.
But from the DEFINITION of mammals, we are mammals, just as we are vertibrates, animals, and apes.
Which of these claims is untrue, and why?
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
...... wish to call manKIND an animal and an ape that is just a sad reflection to the fact they have zero evidence that they must now create false evidence.
What is interesting is the fact that the bat is the only flying mammal and that it confirms Special Creation. Evolutionists claim that a population of mice for millions of years carried around with them part-wings whilst they allegedly learnt to fly. And worse - they have no evidence!
hume1947 2 years ago
"wish to call manKIND an animal and an ape"
Wait, so do you agree or disagree that humans are part of the animal kingdom, biologically? The word "animal" is nothing but a DEFINITION to organize living things. By the DEFINITION of the word animal (multicellular organisms which get energy from other organisms), we are animals, because we have these characteristics. (and we're not plants)
What reason do you have to say that bonobos are (biologically) animals, but humans aren't? Maybe were plants?
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
** "What reason do you have to say that bonobos are (biologically) animals, but humans aren't? Maybe were plants?" ++
The term 'animal' was originally in Genesis over 3,000 years ago and it applied to certain creatures that were created on the sixth creative period (day).
Genesis confirms that later during this creative period - God created manKIND (Adam & Eve) and they were a Special Creation. They were given the attributes of God. THUS we are not animals.
hume1947 2 years ago
"The term 'animal' was originally in Genesis over 3,000 years ago and it applied to certain creatures that were created on the sixth creative period (day)."
Yes, the word animal has multiple meanings. I might refer to "the difference between humans and animals" in a non-scientific sense. But biologically, there's no more reason to say that we're not part of the animal kingdom, then to there is to say that mice or bonobos aren't part of it. Are we also not vertibrates? Mammals? And WHY?
Flyborg 2 years ago
[1/3] The (simplified) scientific definition of animal is "a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall", just like vertibrates are "animals with backbones", and mammals are "warm-blooded animals with hair that feed milk to their young". Which of these are we NOT, and WHY NOT? What data supports your claims?
Flyborg 2 years ago
4 / 4
..... "Some say that the brain is the most complex structure in the universe," said Seung. "Right now it would be an incredible achievement just to find the connectome for a tiny animal like a fly." ++
Google:
Mapping the Most Complex Structure in the Universe: Your Brain
hume1947 2 years ago
3 / 4
Quote:
++ The net effect of all that neural "hand-to-hand combat" is what we call brain development, and it's what transforms a baby who can't walk, talk or operate a Blackberry into a modern, adult human being.
While connectomics researchers are very excited, they're still just getting a handle on mouse-sized brains. It could be a decade before data-crunching technology will be available to map the complexity of the human brain. .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 4
2) But you will notice as I do that most evolutionists love to portray humans as dirty animals thus bring manKIND down to prove their theory that humans descended from animals.
3) Scientists confirm our special we are (and thus our designer).
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"evolutionists love to portray humans as dirty animals"
"dirty" animals? You mean less intelligent animals? What's wrong with dirt?
And what's wrong with descending from something dumber then ourselves? Are you ashamed of being a baby once? Babies poop themselves you know. Those babiologists (poeple who reject stork theory) just LOVE to portray human adults as having descended from babies so as to bring ADULTkind to their level!
You're just throwing accuastions and insults.
Flyborg 2 years ago
"Scientists confirm our special we are"
So it's a science-vs-science fight, eh?
Nowhere in the theory of evolution will you find an explanation of "why humans aren't special". You're arguing against a straw man that no one believes, and that's also irrelivant to science.
It's like when people rejected Einsteins theory of relativity because they thought it meant that morals are relative.
Science can make NO claim on anything philisophical, either positive OR negative.
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 4
Flyborg @
++ "[1/3] The (simplified) scientific definition of animal is "a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall", just like vertibrates are "animals with backbones", and mammals are "warm-blooded animals with hair that feed milk to their young". Which of these are we NOT, and WHY NOT? What data supports your claims? ++
1) Yes we fall under the scientific meaning for animal.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
[2/3] If you told a human doctor to operate on worm, they'd have a bit of difficulty. If you told them to operate on a carrot, they wouldn't know where to start. But when chimps in a zoo require surgery, they frequently call in human doctors. Why does this work? If humans aren't even part of the animal kingdom, let alone the sub groups of vertibrates, mammals, or primates, why is this even possible? And you didn't answer: what REASON do you have to say bonobos are animals, BUT humans aren't?
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
Re the carrot. Well evolutionists say cabbages have a heart.
Re the chimps. I think they would call in a vet.
If you look at most complex animals their internal organs are similar. Thus evidence for a Common Designer. The word animal has several means. But none of your animals worry about the day it is going to die, nor where did he allegedly descend from? Or who was his creator?
hume1947 2 years ago
"..say cabbages have a heart"
What the heck are you talking about, and what does it have to do with my point?
"If you look at most complex animals their internal organs are similar."
..and this explains why a human doctor can operate on a chimp with ease? Because our organs are similar to OTHER animals? What are you arguing for again?
"The word animal has several means."
Yes. I think I made it clear that I'm talking about the biological definition. Any other definition is outside of science.
Flyborg 2 years ago
"But none of your animals worry about the day it is going to die (etc)"
And that's why I said that philisophically we're not animals, but this is subjective and there can be no scientific position on it.
"Or who was his creator?"
Snowflakes and tornados don't care who their creators are, either. (Be careful how you ask questions - it might pre-suppose an answer)
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2 It is this tremendous gap between the apes and manKIND that confirms that we did not descend from them but we are a Special Creation. There is no reason that manKIND via your theory of evolution to make humans have this tremendous gap between us and the apes. Natural Selection would have no need to give humans the special attributes to produce geniuses in so many varied fields.
hume1947 2 years ago
"It is this tremendous gap between the apes and manKIND that confirms that we did not descend from them"
First of all, we DIDN'T descend from any species of ape that currently live. Secondly, as I've explained several times and you haven't refuted, we still are a type of ape, just as much as were mammals and vertibrates and part of the animal kingdom.
How much of a gap do 2 animals need to scientifically say that they COULD NOT have a common ancestor? Is it impossible for rats and mice, too?
Flyborg 2 years ago
4 / 4
....... But the research contradicts this idea, showing that unlike modern chimps ancient humans were not designed to climb trees. Dr Jeremy DeSilva, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, came to this view after carrying out the first ever study of the mechanics of chimpanzees' tree-climbing abilities, using a group of animals in the Kibale National Park of western Uganda. ++
Google:
Why our ancestors couldn't ape chimps, independent
hume1947 2 years ago
Again with the quote mining. You're quoting an article talking about how humans evolved, and the common descent of humans and other apes, in order to prove that we didn't evolve and don't have a common ancestor? What?
All the article was about is that RECENT ancestors couldn't climb trees as well as was once hypothesized, based on the evidence. (notice how it uses evidence to come to conclusions) It says just as much about humans not being apes as it does about humans not being mammals.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
++ "You're quoting an article talking about how humans evolved, and the common descent of humans and other apes, in order to prove that we didn't evolve and don't have a common ancestor? What?" ++
TALKING is not evidence. Of course ALL evolutionists believe in the theory of evolution but this does not put a bar on what certain evolutionists say about the alleged evidence.
Why do evolutionists hate quotes from evolutionists when it confirms there is a flaw in their theory?
hume1947 2 years ago
"Why do evolutionists hate quotes from evolutionists when it confirms there is a flaw in their theory?"
Where did that article say there was a "flaw"? What the heck are you talking about? I explained why your quote was a quote mine. The article was only about how our RECENT ancestors were not as good at climbing trees as once thought. If your conclusion is that therefore we're not apes or don't have a common ancestor, then this is a COMPLETELY non-sequitar conclusion.
Flyborg 2 years ago
If I had claimed that "our recent ancestors were good at climbing trees", then your quote from an article saying "our recent ancestors were NOT good at climbing trees" would be completely appropriate. However I said nothing of the sort, and you weren't trying to prove anything of the sort. You were trying to prove that we don't share a common ancestor with other apes. What on Earth this has to do with recent humans not being as good at climbing trees as was once hypothesized.. I have no idea.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
The article is discussing the period about 1.5 to 4.1 million years ago.
One could ask: Why have evolutionists waited 150 years to investigate this fact when they have argued that humans descended from a gorilla / chimp like creature?
Note that the quote says: ++ But the research contradicts this idea, showing that unlike modern chimps ANCIENT humans were not designed to climb trees. ++
THIS exactly agrees with the Bible. We were designed to live on the ground.
hume1947 2 years ago
"ANCIENT humans"
No matter how "ancient" a human is, they're still a human. Therefore it's still a lot more recent than ancestors so old that they wouldn't be classified as human. Ancient in human terms, but recent in total geological time.
"Why have evolutionists waited 150 years to investigate this fact"
So your argument is that it took too long for this research to be done? And therefore.. ?
"THIS exactly agrees with the Bible"
..that human ancestors lived millions of years ago?
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
++ "All the article was about is that RECENT ancestors couldn't climb trees as well as was once hypothesized, based on the evidence. (notice how it uses evidence to come to conclusions) It says just as much about humans not being apes as it does about humans not being mammals. ++
RECENT ancestors? Well scientists say the DNA evidence alleged humans were on the planet earth about 140,000 years ago.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
..also we can still climb trees. Not as well as some apes, but we can. Also notice that IF some animal was going to evolve to use tools like us, it would HAVE TO be a type of ape. Apes climb, giving them hands that can grasp and opposable thumbs. As a result of this apes can use tools. Notice that non-human apes are better at using tools then any other non-human animal on the planet. If apes didn't have thumbs to climb trees, they couldn't use tools. Amazing coincidence that we have thumbs too?
Flyborg 2 years ago
3 / 4
....... Many experts have argued that this ancestor was probably quite chimpanzee-like, and as a result it has been widely assumed that the earliest humans were ape-like, too. .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 4
2) The morphological evidence confirms that we did not evolve from any type of alleged ape to the upset of evolutionists.
Quote:
++ The hominins lived between 1.5 and 4.1 million years ago, a relatively short time after proto-humans and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor (generally thought to have been between four and eight million years ago). ......
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 4
Flyborg @
++ "First of all, we DIDN'T descend from any species of ape that currently live. Secondly, as I've explained several times and you haven't refuted, we still are a type of ape, just as much as were mammals and vertibrates and part of the animal kingdom." ++
1) We are still a type of ape because a man stated it was so. Thus not evidence but manufactured evidence.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"We are still a type of ape because a man stated it was so. Thus not evidence.."
Actually we were first classified as apes by a creationist. It's not "evidence", it's a definition. Are we not vertebrates because "a man" classified us as vertebrates? Words such as "ape", "vertebrate", "mammal", etc all have defined meanings. By the very definition of these words, we are all these things. Being smarter and having less hair is not enough to remove us as apes, just as it wont remove as vertebrates.
Flyborg 2 years ago 2
1 / 2
Flyborg @
++ ""Or who was his creator?"
Snowflakes and tornados don't care who their creators are, either. (Be careful how you ask questions - it might pre-suppose an answer) ++
But complex animals do have a brain and it is this brain that really sets us apart from other life-forms.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"But complex animals do have a brain and it is this brain that really sets us apart from other life-forms."
Yes, but it's not like the only things on Earth are humans with brains and non-living matter without. It's a gradual slope from brainless self replicating molecules, to simple organisms with a few brain cells, to things like flies with 100,000+ brain cells, to mice and dogs and chimps and finally humans. We have BIGGER brains than other life on this planet.
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
++ "2/3] If you told a human doctor to operate on worm, they'd have a bit of difficulty. If you told them to operate on a carrot, they wouldn't know where to start. But when chimps in a zoo require surgery, they frequently call in human doctors. Why does this work? ++
Re the worm. But the scientists say worms have 50% similar DNA to humans, thus the doctors should be half good if your DNA formula was correct ay?
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"But the scientists say worms have 50% similar DNA to humans, thus the doctors should be half good if your DNA formula was correct ay?"
To some extent you're correct - we share very much DNA with chimps so human doctors can very easily operate. An animal with less similiary would be more difficult. Worms, very difficult, and something that's not even in the animal kingdom - impossible. It's a gradual difference. However some genes have larger effects than others, so you can't just go by DNA.
Flyborg 2 years ago
[3/3] "God created manKIND (Adam & Eve) and they were a Special Creation. They were given the attributes of God. THUS we are not animals."
I thought you said these "attributes" were spiritual or intelectual? Maybe I should be more clear - when I say "humans are part of the animal kingdom", I mean that biologically, our BODIES are. The only way it would matter is if God has a physical body, and looked like us before we did - a mammalian vertibrate primate, made for life in our physical universe?
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
God created all life with the function of the DNA / Gene process system. This is required to exist. Most evolutionists do not like to accept that we are a million miles apart from the animals.
Evolutionists say humans are animals for the one reason to add credence to their theory of evolution. But the evidence proves how wonderful the human body is ... a work of art and only produced by an Intelligent Designer.
hume1947 2 years ago
"Most evolutionists do not like to accept that we are a million miles apart from the animals."
Again, although philisophically we might talk about "the difference between humans and animals", we are BY DEFINITION part of the animal kingdom, just as much as turtles are animals, or roses are plants.
If you claim that we are not, biologically, part of the animal kingdom, or mammals, or vertibrates, then please explain why this is true. I'm all ears. Same with last time I asked, weeks ago.
Flyborg 2 years ago
"But the evidence proves how wonderful the human body is"
See, being subjectively "wonderful" is not a criteria for not being part of the animal kingdom. Just as you can't remove roses from the plant kingdom because "they smell really nice", or remove hamsters from the animal kingdom because "they're really cute". You're confusing philosophy with science.
Also, aren't birds and kittens wonderful, too? So are they not animals, either?
"Most evolutionists do not like.."
Yet more assumptions.
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
++ "I thought you said these "attributes" were spiritual or intelectual? Maybe I should be more clear - when I say "humans are part of the animal kingdom", I mean that biologically, our BODIES are. The only way it would matter is if God has a physical body, and looked like us before we did - a mammalian vertibrate primate, made for life in our physical universe? ++
Most evolutionists to push their theory insist that manKIND are animals.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Most evolutionists to push their theory insist that manKIND are animals."
I've explained several times, in quite some detail, why it's demonstrably true that we are part of the animal kingdom, and also vertibrates and mammals. I've asked you to say which of these claims are untrue, and why, and all you do is repeat the claim.
You know what the definition of animal is, and vertibrate, and mammal. I won't repeat it. Which of these are we not, and WHY not? And what data supports this claim?
Flyborg 2 years ago
"Evolutionists claim that a population of mice.."
No; nobody claims that. Bats have thin bones and don't fossilize well, so there's no consensus on their evolution. Don't make things up. But if you need to see how it would be advantagious to "almost fly", look at a flying squirrel.
You know what WOULD be evidence for your claim? If bats had wings on their back, and still had front paws. Since evolution can only modify what already exists, only the current bats can be explained by evolution.
Flyborg 2 years ago
5 / 5
..... Investigating embryonic development, we found that the digits in bats (Carollia perspicillata) are initially similar in size to those of mice (Mus musculus) but that, subsequently, bat digits greatly lengthen. ++
Google:
Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits, pubmedcentral
hume1947 2 years ago
4 / 5
..... We found that the lengths of the third, fourth, and fifth digits (the primary supportive elements of the wing) have remained constant relative to body size over the last 50 million years. This absence of transitional forms in the fossil record led us to look elsewhere to understand bat wing evolution. .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
3 / 5
Please have a look at this scientific paper that says it was your alleged mice - AND evidence that bats were created as BATS!
Quote:
++ The earliest fossil bats resemble their modern counterparts in possessing greatly elongated digits to support the wing membrane, which is an anatomical hallmark of powered flight. To quantitatively confirm these similarities, we performed a morphometric analysis of wing bones from fossil and modern bats. .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Please have a look at this scientific paper.."
Ah, quote mining. You mean the one that says this?:
"There is a general consensus that the common ancestor of bats was a small, quadrupedal mammal, with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice"
Having a limb morphology similar to mice is not the same as "being a mouse". They also mention the relative lack of fossils for bats, just as would be expected for small animals like this. So again, no one claims bats are evolved from mice.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Flyborg @
++ Ah, quote mining. You mean the one that says this?:
"There is a general consensus that the common ancestor of bats was a small, quadrupedal mammal, with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice" ++
THINK. Since what day did having a general consensus mean anything? This means there is no evidence but the majority hope.
hume1947 2 years ago
"Since what day did having a general consensus mean anything? This means there is no evidence but the majority hope."
*facepalm*
That quote was not to "prove that bats are evolved from an ancestor". It was a response to your untrue claim that "scientists think bats evolved from mice". The very article that you quote-mined to prove your claim, also showed it was false. Unlike some other species, there is limited knowledge on bats, so they did studies based on LIKELY morphology of an ancestor.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
Plus to confirm the deception the authors of the paper then put forward evidence relating to mice, thus it is a double deception all based on zero evidence.
That is why the theory of evolution is not science but science fiction... Just wishful thinking.
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
++ Having a limb morphology similar to mice is not the same as "being a mouse". They also mention the relative lack of fossils for bats, just as would be expected for small animals like this. So again, no one claims bats are evolved from mice. ++
But with zero evidence and by deception they allege that: The common ancestor of bats was a small, quadruped mammal, with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice"
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 5
I do not blame you for denying that evolutionists contend that bats descended from mice. It is absolutely madness to believe that over a vast period of time mice had to carry part-wings around with them for a few millions of years while the wings grew and they learnt how to fly. It would have been a burden when a predator was after them.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"It is absolutely madness to believe that over a vast period of time mice had to carry part-wings around with them.."
..the fuck? "Part wings"? You mean like flying squirrels? If bats had wings on their backs, you'd actually have a point. But they DON'T. The only kind of bats which can be explained by evolution, are the ones that exist.
Flyborg 2 years ago
4 / 4
Quote:
++ Instead, its skeleton more closely resembles those of a still-living lineage known as old world fruit bats, which do not echolocate. (Those bats eat fruit or flower nectar, not insects, and thus perhaps have less need for tracking fast-moving objects.) ++
Google:
Primitive Bats Took to the Wing, but They Didnt Have That Ping, nytimes
hume1947 2 years ago
3 / 4
Then you argue ... no fossils to prove your theory because they were small animals.
But the evidence is the fossil that has been discovered allegedly 50 plus million years old is similar to a present modern bat. Thus all the evidence points to special creation.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"But the evidence is the fossil"
THE fossil? If you're trying to claim that bats do in fact fossilize well despite their tiny bones, shouldn't you be refferencing "the thousands of fossils"? Oh wait, there aren't any. Because.. they're bats.
And the absence of evidence isn't the same as positive evidence or negative evidence for ANY conclusion - it's a LACK of evidence.
An example of negative evidence for evolution would be if bats had wings on their backs.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 4
........ where the evidence is for all these alleged intermediate transitional fossils which for some reason do not exist.
And you do not like to explain how this alleged creature managed to live millions of years carrying around with it part-wings. You act as if this miracle happened overnight and the creature went from running around the ground to the sky just like that. He had two problems. He did not have wings and he could not fly.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"no fossils to prove your theory"
What theory?? All I've done is respond to your claims that it's "impossible". I would never claim that the evolution of bats has been demonstrated, because it has NOT been. Same with boneless animals. Is the lack of jellyfish fossils also "evidence for creationism"? Or maybe it's evidence for Raelians who think that aliens created life.
No - it's simply a LACK of knowledge.
Flyborg 2 years ago
"And you do not like to explain how this alleged creature managed to live millions of years carrying around with it part-wings."
O. M. F. G. :|
How many times do I have to refference "flying squirrels" as an example of a tree-climbing rodent with "part wings", which is neither ground based nor fully airborne? Are flying squirrels impossible to exist? They have "part wings" - a slight modification of their arms - just like bats have "full wings" - a large modification of their arms.
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 4
Flyborg @
++ "Part wings"? You mean like flying squirrels? If bats had wings on their backs, you'd actually have a point. But they DON'T. The only kind of bats which can be explained by evolution, are the ones that exist. ++
I find it strange that you argue that bats descended from: A creature with a limb morphology that was similar to that of mice ... But get shocked to explain .....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 5
Flyborg @
++ " Evolutionists claim that a population of mice.."
No; nobody claims that. Bats have thin bones and don't fossilize well, so there's no consensus on their evolution. Don't make things up. But if you need to see how it would be advantagious to "almost fly", look at a flying squirrel. ++
That is strange plenty of other fossils about that confirm animals were created but the ones that are required to support the theory of evolution are all missing.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"the ones that are required to support the theory of evolution are all missing."
You're kidding, right? There are many thousands of transitional fossils, some of the most well known being for whales, humans, elephants, horses, and the transition from fish to amphibian. Certain things don't fossilize well - jellyfish, things with thin bones like bats, etc. Do you seriously expect that fossils should be found for these? How does this effect the things we do have fossils for?
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
** "But from the DEFINITION of mammals, we are mammals, just as we are vertibrates, animals, and apes. Which of these claims is untrue, and why?" **
The name mammal and vertebrate are names to show that certain life forms have certain common features. Evolutionists have also given certain meanings to the name animal and ape.
(continued)
2 / 2
Thus there is no right or wrong. If evolutionists for the reason to add credence to their theory ......
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"The name mammal and vertebrate.."
No; most of these terms come from before we learned of evolution. Evolution just helped it to make sense.
Do you think that without evolution, we wouldn't classify trees as plants, and rabbits as animals? A vertibrate is an animal WITH A VERTIBRAE - that's as simply as you can get. We're animals, we're mammals, and we're vertibrates. We were actually originally classified as apes by a creationist, because BY DEFINITION, that's what we are.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 3
2) Thus anyone with commonsense would immediately understand that it cannot mean physical abilities but attributes. Your remark confirms that when an evolutionist has a lead like a bloodhound he will follow the scent even if it leads over the cliff.
3) A mother may say: Jimmy is exactly like his father he is humble, patient intelligent and loving. But because atheists and evolutionists are biased they argue: Being like God can only mean physically.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Thus anyone with commonsense would immediately understand that it cannot mean physical abilities but attributes."
You said that "we're not apes, we're made in God's image". Gods image was an alternative to being apes. If we're talking attributes, it doesn't matter what our bodies are. Our bodies could be lizards or worms and it wouldn't contradict "God's image", if "image" refers to something non-material.
Flyborg 2 years ago
2 / 2
God gave manKIND the wonderful benefit of the human brain and the ability to have free choice. Humans were to cultivate the planet Earth and look after the animals this would have been impossible if humans were lizards or worms. See Genesis 1: 27-28.
hume1947 2 years ago
1 / 2
Flyborg @
** "If we're talking attributes, it doesn't matter what our bodies are. Our bodies could be lizards or worms and it wouldn't contradict "God's image", if "image" refers to something non-material." **
Well if we were made in Gods image and had his attributes we could not be like lizards or worms.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"Well if we were made in Gods image and had his attributes we could not be like lizards or worms."
You just said these attributes are spiritual in nature. So it doesn't matter if we're reptiles, mammals, or amphibians. It doesn't matter if our bodies are lizards, worms or apes. It's just a body. Presumably God does not have a physical body and is not a kind of animal. There's no reason a giant lizard couldn't have been given our intellect instead of an ape. (maybe thumbs would help too)
Flyborg 2 years ago
1 / 3
Flyborg @
** "Wait, so God has a physical form? An "image"? God looked like us before we did? That's as silly as a sentient grasshopper telling us that the creator of the universe is a grasshopper, and in fact was a grasshopper before grasshoppers existed. You'd ask what God's wings and mandibles are for, eh? Well, what are God's eyes and bones large intestine and toes for? Why is God a primate? That's ridiculous." **
1) God is a spirit and invisible.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
2 / 4
Thus they recognize that creatures outside this zone cannot reproduce. This zone can be in the wild or in the laboratory.
1) Thus this is evidence that there is a mechanism in place that stops creatures outside the Hybrid zone from reproducing.
2) If we never had this mechanism in place life would be complete disorder. Thus it is further evidence that God is the creator, and that God patented the fact of KIND in black & white as recorded at Genesis 1:12.
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago
"..there is a mechanism in place that stops creatures outside the Hybrid zone from reproducing."
Wait, so are you talking about SPECIES or KINDS? Animals outside this "hybrid zone" are called "different species", but you know very well that speciation is an observed fact. It's not a "mechanism", it's a level of difference. If 2 creatures have sufficiently different genetics, they can not interbreed naturally, and we call them "species".
What does this have to do with "kinds"?
Flyborg 2 years ago
5 / 5
..... of the population, with various intermediate forms making up another small fraction [3]. This rapid evolution is thought to be possible through genetic variations that confer competitive advantages for survival in freshwater when conditions shift rapidly from salt to freshwater. However, the actual molecular basis of this evolution still remains unknown.
hume1947 2 years ago
4 / 5
..... pelvic hind fins, gain tougher bony armor in their scales, and lighten in color as they adapt to life in fresh water.
In 1982, a chemical eradication program at Loberg Lake, Alaska, killed the resident freshwater populations of sticklebacks. Oceanic sticklebacks were introduced and colonized the lake. In just 12 years beginning in 1990, the frequency of the oceanic form dropped steadily, from 100% to 11%, while a variety with fewer plates increased to 75% ....
(continued)
hume1947 2 years ago