Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: cooperton
To neglect the fact that the implementation of mathematics requires intelligence would be the utmost burial of your head in the sand. Matter is naught, biology is naught, life as we know it is naught without these fundamental forces acting in perpetuity. This is the fundamental level of reality. To think something random gave rise to the mathematical order of the cosmos is about as illogical as it gets.

The universe is ordered, I'd agree with that. But is it mathematical? Perhaps to us - In so much as mathematics is a tool, or language, that we use to identify, explain, and predict the constants of the universe. It is a human construct though, i.e. it's our own way of describing the natural physical world in terms we can understand. Our application of mathematics proves that the universe is ordered but not necessarily that it's derived from an intelligent source.

To appease you though, the universe itself absolutely must be intelligent and conscious to a small degree, as per our definition of these terms, since we are a type of matter that beholds these attributes. We don't exist in isolation of the universe but as a part of it.

So, must intelligence arise from intelligence? Is that a fundamental law? Start with defining intelligence.

originally posted by: cooperton
I held to the belief in evolution for a long time, but it eventually reached the point where it no longer matched the over-arching worldview, and the phenomenal complexity seen on the micro and macro scale of the cosmos. Especially the human being.

Are you familiar with Anthropomorphism and the Anthropic Principle?

originally posted by: cooperton
But the dogmatic degree of the theory of evolution has matched the spanish inquisition perpetrated by catholics.

Hardly, and not even metaphorically speaking either.

originally posted by: cooperton
You are blackballed if you disagree with evolutionary theory, and we are taught even before school the narrative of dinosaurs being hundreds of millions of years old, despite there being abundant evidence for the contrary.

Not true. People are free to disagree with the science behind evolution all they want, so long as they apply a counter-hypothesis backed by experimental evidence. Now of course you don't have to do anything of the sort, but then don't expect to be taken seriously - if that's what you mean by being "blackballed".

And yeah, I'm comfortable with the current timelines of the dinosaurs. Not sure why anyone cares so much to disprove that unless you think the Earth is only a couple thousand years old.

originally posted by: cooperton
correct. Which was why my premise was disproving evolutionary theory, rather than proving my speculative thoughts on the matter.

It seems you've done a good job of disproving it to yourself. If that helps you in your life's quest to better understand why you're here arguing about why you're here, then I hope you find the answers you seek.

One thing is fact - no matter what side of the fence you're on - we're all searching for those same answers.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Your hypothesis should focus on the most fundamental level of reality since that's where this force must've started.

The fundamental forces of nature all act according to meticulous physical laws. These laws are mathematically predictable. Many intelligent humans struggle to totally grasp mathematics, yet they are universal in our cosmos. To neglect the fact that the implementation of mathematics requires intelligence would be the utmost burial of your head in the sand. Matter is naught, biology is naught, life as we know it is naught without these fundamental forces acting in perpetuity. This is the fundamental level of reality. To think something random gave rise to the mathematical order of the cosmos is about as illogical as it gets.

Or maybe you can think more about why Evolution threatens you and your belief system? If this omniscient being or force is just that, omniscient, then this is all part of its grand blueprint, isn't it? If that's the case, then you can sit back with a cold beer and take solace in knowing your god is responsible for evolution too.

I held to the belief in evolution for a long time, but it eventually reached the point where it no longer matched the over-arching worldview, and the phenomenal complexity seen on the micro and macro scale of the cosmos. Especially the human being. If anything, real science is the greatest threat to evolution. But the dogmatic degree of the theory of evolution has matched the spanish inquisition perpetrated by catholics. You are blackballed if you disagree with evolutionary theory, and we are taught even before school the narrative of dinosaurs being hundreds of millions of years old, despite there being abundant evidence for the contrary.

Moral of the story, "I don't know" has to be the proper answer if we're all going to be honest with each other.

Am I wrong?

correct. Which was why my premise was disproving evolutionary theory, rather than proving my speculative thoughts on the matter. Socrates nailed it on point: to admit you do not know is the beginning of true knowledge. An adamant belief in evolutionary theory prevents empirical evidence from persuading you about the deeper, more fundamental truths of reality. This is what I realized in my own experience

none of what you just posted qualifies as anything close to a "theory of intelligent design'. which explains why you spend much more time trying to debunk evolution because it is the lesser of two impossible tasks.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

One thing is fact - no matter what side of the fence you're on - we're all searching for those same answers.

Yup. I figured I may be of use to others if I convinced them to leave the philosophical sinking ship of evolutionary theory.

And yeah, I'm comfortable with the current timelines of the dinosaurs. Not sure why anyone cares so much to disprove that

Because if its untrue then human history is totally different than we think and we would potentially have a much more phenomenal history than we are led to believe. If people realize what we truly are it could usher in a global awakening where the true potential of humanity is unveiled.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

none of what you just posted qualifies as anything close to a "theory of intelligent design'. which explains why you spend much more time trying to debunk evolution because it is the lesser of two impossible tasks.

Said the intelligent human typing on a machine made by intelligent humans that uses the intelligible laws of physics to consistently communicate with other intelligent humans throughout the world. Why you guys are so hellbent on denying intelligence is beyond me.

"where's the sign of intelligence?"

-said the conscious being in charge of an organic supercomputer

originally posted by: peter vlar

Again, all you do with such ridiculous statements is demonstrate that you don't understand the first thing about a particular area of study that you disagree with because it makes your god sad. You don't falsify anything with either science or logic. Nothing at all to,support,your position besides the assertion that is biochemists think it could have happened naturally them ergo, "they think it's easy and I think that they're wrong and life is sooperdy dooperdy complex therefore a sentient being more powerful and intelligent than Homo Sapiens Sapiens must be the only possible origin of life and because it's all magical I don't have to explain things like created the creator and the infinite loop that springs eternal from such".

Where did you get all your ridiculous ideas about what I've supposedly said, and what I supposedly want, and what I supposedly believe? Not from me, that's for sure. Look back at my posts, and show me where I said such things....

I'll try and make it perfectly clear to you, once again....

Evolution, in that species are evolving into different species, has zero evidence. I do not support anything that has no evidence, like evolution. It does not mean I support there must be a God, or some being. However, I find that there is valid evidence of a God, or some higher being, which created Earth. On the other hand, I have not seen any valid, conclusive evidence that life was created by a God, or supreme intelligence.

The idea of life being a random chance event(s) of some sort is - to me - utterly ridiculous. Why? First of all, we cannot create life, to this day, despite our knowledge, and technology, to assist us. We can build computers, and aircraft, and countless other things, which are extremely complex in themselves. But we cannot create life, because it is far more complex, than any other creation known, which indicated that life is created by a far, far greater intelligence, than any beings presently existing on Earth. Whether or not a God exists, I know life was a creation of supreme intelligence.


I would love to know who created life on Earth, and how it was created. Don't tell me I'm not interested in knowing how life was created, because it's not true.

Why do you think I'm against the idea of evolution? It has no evidence for it, and that's why I find it a waste of time to flog this dead horse, known as evolution theory.

I don't know how life was created, and I would love to find out, someday, for sure.

That's where I am on this, so you know.


There are major problems with the continual promotion of evolution theory - which have absolutely nothing to do with seeking the truth, or with real sciences, or with gaining more knowledge.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The idea of life being a random chance event(s) of some sort is - to me - utterly ridiculous. Why? First of all, we cannot create life, to this day, despite our knowledge, and technology, to assist us. We can build computers, and aircraft, and countless other things, which are extremely complex in themselves. But we cannot create life, because it is far more complex, than any other creation known, which indicated that life is created by a far, far greater intelligence, than any beings presently existing on Earth. Whether or not a God exists, I know life was a creation of supreme intelligence.

Exactly. It is basic logic that children can understand. Adults tend to ignore it due to stubborn bias. Belief in the random generation of life is a far, far, far stretch of faith more than the belief in the intelligent generation of life.

a reply to: cooperton

Said the intelligent human typing on a machine made by intelligent humans that uses the intelligible laws of physics to consistently communicate with other intelligent humans throughout the world. Why you guys are so hellbent on denying intelligence is beyond me.

"where's the sign of intelligence?"

-said the conscious being in charge of an organic supercomputer

i am not really hellbent on denying intelligence, i am trying to pry a coherent and reasonable theory of intelligent design out of you. and all of the computers in the world will tell you that humans are a product of evolution, not intelligent design.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: turbonium1

The idea of life being a random chance event(s) of some sort is - to me - utterly ridiculous. Why? First of all, we cannot create life, to this day, despite our knowledge, and technology, to assist us. We can build computers, and aircraft, and countless other things, which are extremely complex in themselves. But we cannot create life, because it is far more complex, than any other creation known, which indicated that life is created by a far, far greater intelligence, than any beings presently existing on Earth. Whether or not a God exists, I know life was a creation of supreme intelligence.

Exactly. It is basic logic that children can understand. Adults tend to ignore it due to stubborn bias. Belief in the random generation of life is a far, far, far stretch of faith more than the belief in the intelligent generation of life.

The only difference is that they don't realize it is all based on faith, unlike many of the people who believe in a God. That's the dangerous part of it.

Their unified, blind faith in everything 'science' claims.....is outright scary.

I've worked in the high-tech medical device industry for 30 years, with some of the top engineers, and research scientists in the world. These people are - in my opinion - geniuses in their field of expertise. But they are human, and they make mistakes, like everyone else does. Not as many mistakes as most people would, in their field, but they are not perfect, by any means.

I've had to tell my family doctor that what he was prescribing for my mom was conflicting with other medication he had prescribed her. I had to research this to find out, and then I told him about it. I gave him the documentation on it, and he agreed with what I told him. He changed my mom's prescription immediately.

The point is that experts can be wrong, and if you trust in everything they say, you are not in charge of your own life, or future. You are leaving it up to someone else to make up your life, to tell you what is true, and what is false.

If I hadn't done my own research on my mom's prescriptions, she could have died within a few weeks.

A lesson for all of the people who are solely relying on what 'experts' say, and do......THINK FOR YOURSELF, BEFORE YOU FIND OUT THE HARD WAY.

I respect what these people do, how incredibly intelligent they are, and that they - by and large - have only good intentions in mind. But they are not Gods, they are human, and that's something everyone out there has to realize.


When I look at something like the theory of evolution, I cringe. It began with a false assumption, on top of other false assumptions, that there must have been only one, or perhaps a few, simple-celled life forms, at the very beginning. All further life forms came from those one, or few, simple-celled species.

These are incredibly remarkable claims, and they require incredibly significant evidence to support them.

All of the work in my field has to test, and repeat, and validate, and independently confirm, whatever is claimed about a medical device. Almost every new device is based on earlier technologies, and/or devices, and/or scientific documentation related to the device. Step by step, progress over time, a better device is developed.

Science can only work if it supports ideas, or theories, or products - with valid evidence, and accountability. For my industry, there must be evidence, and accountability. Because everything we say, or do, means nothing without evidence, and proof, and accountability, for our products. If a company in the industry goes on lies, or deception, when they release a product, it is likely to be caught, or found out, later on. It's a virtual death sentence, yet it still happens, now and then.


A fool takes someone's word as fact, as truth, on nothing but their blind faith, in a belief system.

We were all given brains, and intelligence, to find our way, to seek truth, to understand a truth from a lie. We were not born for others to think for us, to tell us what is true, or a lie.

It is never too late to think for yourself.


A faith in science will not help you find the truth. Indeed, you would never know what the truth is, or is not, unless you think for yourself.


I'm glad to see others like yourself understand this, cooperton.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Said the intelligent human typing on a machine made by intelligent humans that uses the intelligible laws of physics to consistently communicate with other intelligent humans throughout the world. Why you guys are so hellbent on denying intelligence is beyond me.

"where's the sign of intelligence?"

-said the conscious being in charge of an organic supercomputer

i am not really hellbent on denying intelligence, i am trying to pry a coherent and reasonable theory of intelligent design out of you. and all of the computers in the world will tell you that humans are a product of evolution, not intelligent design.

It's not very intelligent to believe that computers have an intelligence, in the first place. It's far less intelligent to think a computer has intelligence to 'tell you' anything it 'knows'.

Your argument is - computers have intelligence, and the computers will 'tell you' that humans were not created by intelligence.

Along come all these incredible computers, which have their own, amazing, 'intelligence'. And all of these 'very intelligent' computers, are now telling us that every life form on Earth, except for 'we, the supreme Computer Gods', was long ago just a lifeless, heaping pile, of sh&^%t. And so all the people accept what their supreme, all-knowing Computer God 'tells us' is the truth.

Soon, the Computer Gods will 'tell us' they ARE Gods, who have never been created by humans. And you will believe it. Since the Computers know everything.


It's a LACK of using one's intelligence, and the absolute, ignorant belief, that only OTHERS have intelligence, that will ultimately lead these fools into sealing their own fate.


And the fools will mock others, who have tried to warn them, to their very last day.

Only then, will the fools finally understand, far too late, it was their own ignorance, their blind, universal 'faith' in their great Gods, who told them to scorn and mock all those who disparaged their Gods.....would ultimately have sealed their own fate.

originally posted by: turbonium1

When I look at something like the theory of evolution, I cringe. It began with a false assumption, on top of other false assumptions, that there must have been only one, or perhaps a few, simple-celled life forms, at the very beginning. All further life forms came from those one, or few, simple-celled species.

These are incredibly remarkable claims, and they require incredibly significant evidence to support them.

Have you done any research whatsoever on the Burgess Shale, or indeed the fossil record? Because the Burgess Shale alone proves you to be laughably wrong. Have you ever heard of fossilised stromatolites? I'm guessing either a) you have no idea or b) you have heard of them but you instantly dismiss them because they disprove your false assumptions.
.
..
...
Damn it, why am I feeding a troll?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

When I look at something like the theory of evolution, I cringe. It began with a false assumption, on top of other false assumptions, that there must have been only one, or perhaps a few, simple-celled life forms, at the very beginning. All further life forms came from those one, or few, simple-celled species.

These are incredibly remarkable claims, and they require incredibly significant evidence to support them.

Have you done any research whatsoever on the Burgess Shale, or indeed the fossil record? Because the Burgess Shale alone proves you to be laughably wrong. Have you ever heard of fossilised stromatolites? I'm guessing either a) you have no idea or b) you have heard of them but you instantly dismiss them because they disprove your false assumptions.
.

What about supporting your claims with actual sources, for once?

Why not just post something like this...

Here is an example of evolution - the Burgess Shale..

(Quote relevant points from your source(s))

Link the source you quoted above.


Explain specifically why this is an example that proves evolution. Ask me to refute your example, in detail.



Just so you'll remember next time -

A troll is someone who DOES NOT provide sources for an argument. A troll is someone who repeatedly calls someone else a troll, who actually DOES want to discuss the issue itself.

I'm sure you don't want to be a troll, right?

You simply need to discuss the actual issue, and provide sources for your argument, to not be a troll.


See how easy that is?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

When I look at something like the theory of evolution, I cringe. It began with a false assumption, on top of other false assumptions, that there must have been only one, or perhaps a few, simple-celled life forms, at the very beginning. All further life forms came from those one, or few, simple-celled species.

These are incredibly remarkable claims, and they require incredibly significant evidence to support them.

Have you done any research whatsoever on the Burgess Shale, or indeed the fossil record? Because the Burgess Shale alone proves you to be laughably wrong. Have you ever heard of fossilised stromatolites? I'm guessing either a) you have no idea or b) you have heard of them but you instantly dismiss them because they disprove your false assumptions.
.

What about supporting your claims with actual sources, for once?

Why not just post something like this...

Here is an example of evolution - the Burgess Shale..

(Quote relevant points from your source(s))

Link the source you quoted above.


Explain specifically why this is an example that proves evolution. Ask me to refute your example, in detail.



Just so you'll remember next time -

A troll is someone who DOES NOT provide sources for an argument. A troll is someone who repeatedly calls someone else a troll, who actually DOES want to discuss the issue itself.

I'm sure you don't want to be a troll, right?

You simply need to discuss the actual issue, and provide sources for your argument, to not be a troll.


See how easy that is?

Given the fact that you have rubbished each and every claim that evolution is a viable, testable, proven scientific theory what's the point in posting anything up. But I present this, with a due sense of weary anticipation that you will instantly dismiss it.
You have no interest in discussing anything. You are simply utterly dogmatic in your belief that evolution does not exist. Given that you are also convinced that gravity doesn't exist and that we are all somehow magnets, that shows that this discussion is always going to be pointless.

Extinct species were found in the Burgess Shale region,.


Nobody can dispute that thousands of species are now extinct. Nobody can dispute many of those species became extinct without our knowledge they once existed, either.

Every species ever known to live in the era of human beings - both extinct and living today - have never 'evolved' into another species. Every species that is now extinct, during the time of humans, ended it's existence, as a species, on Earth, forever after. Not one living species known to humans, which became extinct, later on, has ever 'evolved' into another species before it became extinct. And no living species has 'evolved' into another species, either.

It comprises all the ACTUAL, VALID, CONFIRMED evidence of this matter. It cannot be disputed as being the only actual, valid evidence. It proves, beyond a doubt, that every species on Earth, remains the same species, throughout its existence.


Arguing for some process which supposedly happens over millions of years, is a ridiculous excuse. Because this imaginary process has never, ever happened, or ever even has INDICATED it actually COULD happen.

Moreover, this process is supposedly occurring all the time - a continuous 'evolution' process, where all species on Earth are slowly, and gradually, transforming into another, different species!!


What does a 'continual' process mean? It means a process which goes on and on, without ever stopping. Right?

If a continual process has never appeared to exist, in thousands of years, it obviously cannot be considered as a continual process. Nor a process, at all.


It's purely an argument based on nonsense.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

When I look at something like the theory of evolution, I cringe. It began with a false assumption, on top of other false assumptions, that there must have been only one, or perhaps a few, simple-celled life forms, at the very beginning. All further life forms came from those one, or few, simple-celled species.

These are incredibly remarkable claims, and they require incredibly significant evidence to support them.

Have you done any research whatsoever on the Burgess Shale, or indeed the fossil record? Because the Burgess Shale alone proves you to be laughably wrong. Have you ever heard of fossilised stromatolites? I'm guessing either a) you have no idea or b) you have heard of them but you instantly dismiss them because they disprove your false assumptions.
.

What about supporting your claims with actual sources, for once?

Why not just post something like this...

Here is an example of evolution - the Burgess Shale..

(Quote relevant points from your source(s))

Link the source you quoted above.


Explain specifically why this is an example that proves evolution. Ask me to refute your example, in detail.



Just so you'll remember next time -

A troll is someone who DOES NOT provide sources for an argument. A troll is someone who repeatedly calls someone else a troll, who actually DOES want to discuss the issue itself.

I'm sure you don't want to be a troll, right?

You simply need to discuss the actual issue, and provide sources for your argument, to not be a troll.


See how easy that is?

Given the fact that you have rubbished each and every claim that evolution is a viable, testable, proven scientific theory what's the point in posting anything up. But I present this, with a due sense of weary anticipation that you will instantly dismiss it.
You have no interest in discussing anything. You are simply utterly dogmatic in your belief that evolution does not exist. Given that you are also convinced that gravity doesn't exist and that we are all somehow magnets, that shows that this discussion is always going to be pointless.

Does this source provide any evidence that 'evolution' of one, or more, of these species... has actually occurred?

Please cite the specific quotes which support your claim..then I'd be able to address it...

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: cooperton

You need an invisible sky daddy and the promise of an eternal soul to find any meaning in your life? I can't help but feel a little sorry for you.

You made a lot of assumptions about coopertons post. Did he say he needs a sky daddy? I would rather be open to other possibilities than the Theory of Evolution, which in my opinion requires a huge amount of blind faith to believe in. The Theory of Evolution is in itself a religion or maybe a better word is cult.

They have found thousands of extinct species over the years, which they have dated to millions of years ago, or at least before humans were around..

How many of those long-extinct species have been claimed to be 'ancestors' of other species? All of them, or most of them?

How many of those same long-extinct species have been claimed to never have 'evolved' into other species? Any of them, at all? Even one, or two, of those species?


Have they ever compared all the long-extinct species which they claim to be 'ancestors' of other species, to the actual evidence of extinct species, which have NEVER 'evolved' into other species?


Probably not, right?

Have you done any research whatsoever on the Burgess Shale, or indeed the fossil record? Because the Burgess Shale alone proves you to be laughably wrong. Have you ever heard of fossilised stromatolites? I'm guessing either a) you have no idea or b) you have heard of them but you instantly dismiss them because they disprove your false assumptions.
.


What about supporting your claims with actual sources, for once?

Why not just post something like this...

Here is an example of evolution - the Burgess Shale..

(Quote relevant points from your source(s))

Link the source you quoted above.


Explain specifically why this is an example that proves evolution. Ask me to refute your example, in detail.



Just so you'll remember next time -

A troll is someone who DOES NOT provide sources for an argument. A troll is someone who repeatedly calls someone else a troll, who actually DOES want to discuss the issue itself.

I'm sure you don't want to be a troll, right?

You simply need to discuss the actual issue, and provide sources for your argument, to not be a troll.


See how easy that is?

Given the fact that you have rubbished each and every claim that evolution is a viable, testable, proven scientific theory what's the point in posting anything up. But I present this, with a due sense of weary anticipation that you will instantly dismiss it.
You have no interest in discussing anything. You are simply utterly dogmatic in your belief that evolution does not exist. Given that you are also convinced that gravity doesn't exist and that we are all somehow magnets, that shows that this discussion is always going to be pointless.






Guess what? I want to discuss it. I would love for you to show me one single species that is alive today where there is evidence of it evolving into another species? Not adaption, but evolution. I don't want fossil evidence. There should be thousands of examples if we are all evolving into something else. According to to the evolution THEORY I came from that primordial soup and over generations my species has evolved to what we are now. Have we stopped evolving?? Have we hit perfection?
I don't want to make the discussion any more complicated than this, because common sense has always told me that there has to be species that are always changing for the theory to be accurate.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Extinct species were found in the Burgess Shale region,.


Nobody can dispute that thousands of species are now extinct. Nobody can dispute many of those species became extinct without our knowledge they once existed, either.

Every species ever known to live in the era of human beings - both extinct and living today - have never 'evolved' into another species. Every species that is now extinct, during the time of humans, ended it's existence, as a species, on Earth, forever after. Not one living species known to humans, which became extinct, later on, has ever 'evolved' into another species before it became extinct. And no living species has 'evolved' into another species, either.

It comprises all the ACTUAL, VALID, CONFIRMED evidence of this matter. It cannot be disputed as being the only actual, valid evidence. It proves, beyond a doubt, that every species on Earth, remains the same species, throughout its existence.


Arguing for some process which supposedly happens over millions of years, is a ridiculous excuse. Because this imaginary process has never, ever happened, or ever even has INDICATED it actually COULD happen.

Moreover, this process is supposedly occurring all the time - a continuous 'evolution' process, where all species on Earth are slowly, and gradually, transforming into another, different species!!


What does a 'continual' process mean? It means a process which goes on and on, without ever stopping. Right?

If a continual process has never appeared to exist, in thousands of years, it obviously cannot be considered as a continual process. Nor a process, at all.


It's purely an argument based on nonsense.

Congratulations, you have hit rock bottom in displaying your utter scientific ignorance. Stop digging please.
One small thing before I laugh and walk away from this nonsense. Define 'human'. You are aware that we are descended from a creature like Lucy aren't you?
You and and I and everyone else on this planet came from primates millions of years ago. Now, either you continue to troll us (in which I bow again to your troll-fu) or you have a mind that is nailed shut and which is unreceptive to new information (in which case I pity you). The fossil record has proven you to be wrong again and again and again. I suggest that you live with it.

originally posted by: turbonium1
They have found thousands of extinct species over the years, which they have dated to millions of years ago, or at least before humans were around..

How many of those long-extinct species have been claimed to be 'ancestors' of other species? All of them, or most of them?

How many of those same long-extinct species have been claimed to never have 'evolved' into other species? Any of them, at all? Even one, or two, of those species?


Have they ever compared all the long-extinct species which they claim to be 'ancestors' of other species, to the actual evidence of extinct species, which have NEVER 'evolved' into other species?


Probably not, right?

No, just the opposite in fact. We are descended from Australopithecus. We are also related to Homo Habilis and of course Homo Erectus. Some of us have DNA that shows that our ancestors were very friendly with Homo Neanderthalensis.
Now, I can guess what you are about to reply with - "Where are they now? Where are their descendents???" There's a nice simple answer. Take a look in the mirror.
You are descended from a primate. Live with it.

originally posted by: turbonium1
They have found thousands of extinct species over the years, which they have dated to millions of years ago, or at least before humans were around..

How many of those long-extinct species have been claimed to be 'ancestors' of other species? All of them, or most of them?

How many of those same long-extinct species have been claimed to never have 'evolved' into other species? Any of them, at all? Even one, or two, of those species?


Have they ever compared all the long-extinct species which they claim to be 'ancestors' of other species, to the actual evidence of extinct species, which have NEVER 'evolved' into other species?


Probably not, right?

To make claims like this, you have to purposely ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary. One specific site in particular, Sims de Los Huesos in Atapuerca Spain. Sims denlos Huesos means “pit of bones”. It’s a place where human remains were purposely deposited over a prolonged period of time. This also happened to be at a time frame that was concurrent with Neanderthal and Denisova lineages splitting. Between the morphological characteristics and the genetics, there is absolutely zero doubt that these are proto-Denisovans. This is just one example of many. We also know of another hominid who is genetically closer related to Neanderthal than Denisovans. No physical remains have been definitively linked but the genetics are very clear in northern and central Africa. We’ve found over the last decade that there were numerous archaic hominids all over Europe, Asia and Africa. Denisovans and Homo Naledi are just 2 of the most recent finds. And yes, they are both morphological distinct and genetically distinct from Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The biggest difference between Denisovans and H. Naledi is that we have literally hundreds of remains of H. Naledi from the Rising Star Cace system in South Africa where these remains were purposely placed after dead and they were of all ages from juveniles to elderly. Please feel free to ignore science though if it hurts your religious sensivilities.