What's new

Evolution discussion

Saying humans are "ape-like" is like saying house cats are "feline-like" and dogs are "canine-like". House cats are felines, dogs are canines, humans are apes. There is no evolutionary "ape-like ancestor", there is a common ancestry between humans and other apes, closer than the ancestry between any human and any non-ape, an ape ancestry.

Uhhh.

Yeah, like I said, "ape-like" ancestor is a meaningless concept when you refuse to even acknowledge your made-up continuum from ape-like ancestor to human.

If you say humans can't be any more ape-like than we currently are then we can just throw out your stupid "ape-like ancestor" concept all together, because if there is no change there is no theory of change. I'm good with that.
 
Uhhh.

Yeah, like I said, "ape-like" ancestor is a meaningless concept when you refuse to even acknowledge your made-up continuum from ape-like ancestor to human.

If you say humans can't be any more ape-like than we currently are then we can just throw out your stupid "ape-like ancestor" concept all together, because if there is no change there is no theory of change. I'm good with that.

What does that mean? Chimps and humans are both "apes". This is a category that scientists define in a certain way to facilitate exchange of information (among many other reasons). At some point in the past, there were no 2 separate ape species named Chimps and humans. There was only one species of apes whose off-spring eventually evolved down different paths leading to humans and chimps. What exactly do you disagree with?
 
"I knew, of course, that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. ... Whales could be born with a little extra lump of bone which evolutionists therefore insisted was a throwback corresponding to a second limb bone.

However, the spectacle of a whale being hauled out of the ocean with an actual leg hanging down from its side was a totally different issue. I don't remember my exact response, but I indicated that, if true, this would be a serious challenge to explain on the basis of a creation model." (Wieland 1998)


So this creationist made fool of himself as he did not know that whale with atavistic hind legs was cought in 1919 in Canada. Another dolphin with rear flippers was cought in 2006 in Japan. Perfect examples of common ancestry.

1xylbc.jpg


2wqwzo1.jpg


How about humans with tails?

2zg9s2o.jpg


https://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.shtml
 
What does that mean? Chimps and humans are both "apes". This is a category that scientists define in a certain way to facilitate exchange of information (among many other reasons). At some point in the past, there were no 2 separate ape species named Chimps and humans. There was only one species of apes whose off-spring eventually evolved down different paths leading to humans and chimps. What exactly do you disagree with?

Why are you jumping into the middle of a conversation between me and One Brow after saying it was fruitless endeavor mere seconds ago.

Go put your head back up your ape-like ***.
 
So this creationist made fool of himself as he did not know that whale with atavistic hind legs was cought in 1919 in Canada. Perfect examples of common ancestry.
How about humans with tails?

looks more like an "atavistic" dick and yes that is unimpeachable proof of the existence of the whale's "bear-like" ancestor
 
Why are you jumping into the middle of a conversation between me and One Brow after saying it was fruitless endeavor mere seconds ago.

Go put your head back up your ape-like ***.

Right. I apologize. You can go back to throwing memorized soundbites at One Brow's long and elaborate blocks of wasted time.
 
15:26 Verily we created man out of potter's clay of black mud altered.

15:28 And remember when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am creating
a mortal out of potter's clay of black mud altered.

16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid, yet, behold! he is an open
opponent

22:5 O mankind! If you are in any doubt concerning the Resurrection, then
lo! We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot,
then from a little lump of flesh shapely and shapeless, that We may make it
clear for you.

23:12 Verily we created man from a product of wet earth (loam).
23:13 Then placed him (as a drop of seed) in a safe lodging;
23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little
lump, then fashioned We the little clot bones, then clothed the bones with
flesh, and then produced it as another creature. So blessed be Allah, the
Best of Creators!


Sorry but it is not a theory of evolution. Maybe Siro has good description what it is but to me it looks no different then Eve's creation from Adam's rib.

On 23:14 it is talking about embryology (which it does so accurately btw.)

So you admit that all life has the same origin. Humans are no exception. Humans come from material of this earth just like everything else. It says in the Qur'an that humans are made from the water (21:30). It also says humans are made from clay/dust. It never says instantaneously.

Quran 71:14

While he has made you in stages.

Humans were made from clay/dust and water. Humans were also made in stages.
 
On 23:14 it is talking about embryology (which it does so accurately btw.)

So you admit that all life has the same origin. Humans are no exception. Humans come from material of this earth just like everything else. It says in the Qur'an that humans are made from the water (21:30). It also says humans are made from clay/dust. It never says instantaneously.

Quran 71:14

While he has made you in stages.

Humans were made from clay/dust and water. Humans were also made in stages.

Again, where does it talk about common ancestry for all life forms?
 
My own pet snake has little stubby vestigial legs. I will post picture later as I am at work now.
 
Again, where does it talk about common ancestry for all life forms?

You don't need to even get that far. Read what the actual "miraculous" verse is saying.

Here are the steps of embryo development according to the verse.

1. A piece of wet clay is implanted in the womb (safe place).
2. It is then turned into a drop of blood by god.
3. The blood is then fashioned into a lump.
4. The lump is turned into a skeleton.
5. The skeleton is then dressed in flesh.

Now wait for TBS to come and explain to you how it's actually metaphorical, and how it is 100% accurate once you understand the metaphor in the way he'll provide.
 
My own pet snake has little stubby vestigial legs. I will post picture later as I am at work now.
Please do not post pictures of your trouser snake. And BTW, those growths aren't vestigial legs; they're the effects of the STD you have. Please see a doctor as soon as you can before "it" falls off.
 
I understand your Darwiniac point without creepy *** pictures of snakes.

Saddly I do not think you do. Because if you would you would not argue with it.

Any theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. For example even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely - common descent.
 
So we agree that evolution is true - which is silly to deny as evidence is so overhelming. What makes me sad is creationist idiots who ignore any scientific evidence for Earth age and evolution and try to spread their idiotic ideas .

Creationists often say that the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago. With teachings like this, they misrepresent the Bible, which says that God created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”—at some unstated point before the more specific creative “days” began. Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years? The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1)*Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2)*End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

As to the actual length of each "creative" day, were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration .*.*. Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours. Even in the English vernacular we often refer to "day" in various lengths and ways! For example, back in "my fathers day" has reference to decades ago! Farmers use the expression "harvest day".....not a 24 hour period, but possibly weeks or even a month!

According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years and the Bible’s creative days allow for even millions of years of time each and since they were "work" days.....each creative day could have even been of various lengths, some shorter, some longer than others! Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1)

Significantly, the Genesis account shows that the expression “day” is used in a flexible sense. At Genesis 2:4, the entire period of six days described in the preceding chapter is spoken of as only one day. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time. Each of these epochs evidently lasted thousands, perhaps even millions of years. Since no humans were around to keep track of time, no one can know or even "assume" correctly how long each one was!

So, to conclude this segment of my post I leave you with THIS quote from molecular biologist Francis Collins on claims that the creative days were only 24 literal hours in length, “Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history.”
 
You don't need to even get that far. Read what the actual "miraculous" verse is saying.

Here are the steps of embryo development according to the verse.

1. A piece of wet clay is implanted in the womb (safe place).
2. It is then turned into a drop of blood by god.
3. The blood is then fashioned into a lump.
4. The lump is turned into a skeleton.
5. The skeleton is then dressed in flesh.

Now wait for TBS to come and explain to you how it's actually metaphorical, and how it is 100% accurate once you understand the metaphor in the way he'll provide.

Its not metaphorical at all. I think people use the metaphorical card too much when a verse says something scientifically innaccurate. I only say things are metaphorical when it is blatant (like when Bible says jesus is the door, you don't look for hinges) or it is just how words evolved (like when I say lunatic, not literally mean struck by moon, disaster does not mean a star omen etc)

23:12 talks about the origin of man before they were men, abiogensis


the rest of it says "then"

In gods perspective there is no time. God is outside of time.

23:13 talks about how sperm goes up to a safe place (where the egg is located)
23:14 This sperm and egg mix and grow turning into a clump of flesh (morula). This morula eventually has bones and muscle that form immediately to one another.
 
Saddly I do not think you do. Because if you would you would not argue with it.

Any theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. For example even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely - common descent.

If you don't believe in a common ancestor you can easily answer that by saying they have the same designer/coder so their designs/biological systems would look similar. This also accounts for all the different useful adaptation like a spider web for catching food, or a tube for sucking nector.

An ID theorist who believes in common descent answers it the same way you do...they share a common ancestor...and an intelligent force is directing the change from simple to complex.
 
You are like a kid who argues with parents about snow being blue. I am disappointed.

Don't tell me you believe in that story about a bear falling into the ocean and becoming a whale.

You are getting too worked up over this "atavistic" whale dick. Now if there were some discoveries of kids being born with shark heads or whale tales then I would drive to Canada and worship Darwin with you.
 
Don't tell me you believe in that story about a bear falling into the ocean and becoming a whale.

You are getting too worked up over this "atavistic" whale dick. Now if there were some discoveries of kids being born with shark heads or whale tales then I would drive to Canada and worship Darwin with you.

Why dick? Since when vestigial legs are dick? Why you are calling tail of a girl in previous x-ray I posted a dick? I can't award you any points in this discussion if you are not taking it seriously and start throwing words like dick and "crazy ***" theory. You are not discussing it with serious arguments, you showing your weakness and losing it.
What bears have to do with whales? Is that some kind of creationist legend? Whales have nothing to do with bears, read and educate yourself about evolution of whales please.
 
they share a common ancestor...and an intelligent force is directing the change from simple to complex.

yet there is not even a single evidence of that intelligent force directing it - now that is "crazy ***" story to me.
 
Top