Can't Believe in Human Evolution From Chimps

Reply to Heron:
Originally posted by OhZone
Heron, how do you know that human consciousness is different from that of animals?
In what way is it different?
========================

”As I mentioned, it resembles a quantum computer with astonishing power according to some of the scientists I mentioned earlier.”

****How do you know that? What evidence do you have?

So you believe that the “soul” HAS consciousness?
Would you consider that perhaps the soul IS consciousness?
Else how would you know if you went to Heavan?

I think that soul and consciousness and mind are one and the same.
In this physical life it operates and expresses itself thru the brain.

Heron, I’m with you on everything but the soul, so far.
No one has satisfactorily answered any of your questions.

I have noticed on other boards, that none of the evolutionists can answer the creationist’s questions. They dance around the subject with their spurious evidence and haplo hoopla and various scientific terms having no relavance to the question..

On the other hand, none of the creationists can tell us how God did it. “God works in mysterious ways” is about all they can come up with.

Anonymous guest, dogs learn new behaviors from humans too. Pet owners can tell you many stories about some of the amazing things that their dogs do that they have had no training for.
Animals also have a spectrum of emotions.

Rnaa, shouldn’t there have been at least one or 2 of those intermediates?
Without them your theory is just an imaginary hypotosis.
BTW how many bones are you basing your theory upon?
As I understand it, you do not even have complete skeletons.
It has been pointed out that many of your skulls are also incomplete, and may have been pieced together from bones found in different areas.

In short, I think your theory is a Joke.

reply to post by OhZone

Rnaa, shouldn’t there have been at least one or 2 of those intermediates? Without them your theory is just an imaginary hypotosis.

There are in fact hundreds. Please see the link in my earlier posts or look it up on Wikipedia.

It would seem the OPs ego is dictating his IQ. Humans are the only animal with consciousness indeed. How arrogant.

Why is it always the ones who can not intellectually comprehend how big an idea evolution is, turn to simplistic ideas like religion and creationism.

Here is a good question for any creationist. Why did God create mutations ? You know the kind that causes lots of misery and suffering. I mean most misery in the world is caused by man but if creationism is real, then all mutations are caused by God.

so anyway why are we bothering to do this i expect your are trying to convert some people or get stars and flags from other creationists
but at the end of the day neither creationist or evolutionist changes their ways or learns anything, however if you must point out the flaws woth evolution (or creationismm as i have) then make it a good flaw that you think people are going to get stumped on
your saying you cant take that we evolved from chimps seriously? well thats going to get an evolutionists attention to explain it to you, also this question points out your lack of knowledge of evolution we all know that we share a common ancestor with the chimps taht split off too us and the other way to chimps, apes, , etc
so my advice too you is before you challenge something learn a little bit about it first so you will at least have a standing defense against the people who know tons about it

i can't either, you know why? because it didn't happen. you want proof of that? just look at what evolutionists consider "proof" that we came from monkies.

"Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years."

"Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away.""

"Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years."

45 years and 500 books written on a hoax!!! (waits for evolutionists to say "oh, but that was in 1953, we know better now" no, you actually don't)

"On picture #14, Homo Erectus, number 10, is an actual modern human being and nothing less. One Homo Erectus find, called Peking Man, was based on but one tooth. "Davidson Black...became convinced that it (the one tooth) was a human tooth...He then confidently announced a new genus of man.""

"NEANDERTHAL MAN: #11 was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans. "

""The curvatures in the limb bones, and other deformities, led scientists to believe that Neanderthal walked with a stooped, bent kneed gait. Decades later, it was shown that these were in fact the remains of an old individual crippled with arthritis.""

this is what the evolutionists lables as "evidence". it falls apart when you look at it. here are some quotes that EVOLUTIONISTS have said reguarding the flimsyness of the theory.

""We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner"

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson"

""Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith"

the source has many other references to books on evolution, they are seperated out into pro-evolution, anti-evolution, and neutral.

emporium.turnpike.net...

i'm sorry guys, i can't see you, there is this MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE obstructing my line of sight

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

i can't either, you know why? because it didn't happen. you want proof of that? just look at what evolutionists consider "proof" that we came from monkies.

No proof is needed because no one is claiming that humans evolved 'from monkies'. Least of all evolutionists. Humans and monkies and apes all descended from a common ancestor, who in turn was not a monkey or an ape (nor a chimp). This has been explained exhaustively over and over.

Can you please accept that this is a charge that was raised by the opponents of Darwin's "Origin of Species" 150 years ago as a public relations maneuver and nothing else. Darwin never even got close to saying anything of the sort in Species - he avoided the topic on purpose.

"Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away.""

That is simply an unadorned, unequivocal lie. Lucy's Knee Joint

"Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years."

Yes it was a hoax perpetrated by a person with an axe to grind, unrelated to biology, against the finder. The finder was fooled, and perhaps contributed to his own downfall by remaining blind to defects in the story. Doubts about it were raised very early, however the theory was not as advanced as it was 30 years later, and a minor altercation called World War I distracted everyone from dealing with it till much later. Between the wars, the main scholarly thrust was in rationalizing the many evolutionary theories, of which Darwin's was only one of many by the way, into the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", which is the commonly accepted theory to this day. Then another minor altercation, World War II, distracted attention away from mundane considerations of bad scientific claims.

After the WWII, Piltdown was finally evaluated in detail and it was science and the ever improving understanding of evolution that exposed the fraud. It is only Creationists that keep this story alive. It get really boring responding to this over and over and over. Don't you get bored raising it? It really lends your argument no credibility to discuss what is in actuality a success for the science of evolution. After all science has no real control over people raising fraudulent claims, but it ought to be able to detect those fraudulent claims, don't you think?

""The curvatures in the limb bones, and other deformities, led scientists to believe that Neanderthal walked with a stooped, bent kneed gait. Decades later, it was shown that these were in fact the remains of an old individual crippled with arthritis.""

First you are obviously cutting and pasting from some site or the other. ATS calls this plagiarism if you don't credit the author. Please correct this error.

Neanderthal is not one old individual with arthritis, (or rickets the much more common Creationist claim), or any other diseased deformity of the bones. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Neanderthal skeletons, and they are not diseased deformities. Arthritis (or rickets) does not produce individuals with skeletons resembling Neanderthals. Creationist Arguments: Neandertals

This is simply another lie perpetrated by anti-evolutionists who pay attention only each other's biased opinion, and repeatedly cutting and pasting the same circular arguments, and never on the actual facts of the issue.

[edit on 26/4/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 26/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


i bet aside form those few flaws that you know nothing about evolution
do you think we believe we evolved from chimps? thats crazy we have a common ancestor
sorry i blew away your mountain of evidence with my death ray of logic

reply to post by rnaa


first off, i am perfectly aware that evolutionists don't believe we desended from modern day monkies, i was merely being general.

the link you posted for lucy's knee joint is..disappointing. the author is speculating that johanson misunderstood the question, and then rephrases the question, and changes one word to make it seem like anyone could make this mistake. he replaces "the" with "lucy".

Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.

This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?

johanson had plenty of time to clarify what he meant, but he never did.

your own link: www.talkorigins.org...

not to mention, the knee was relabled to fit what johanson needed, proof of her being bipedal.

In a letter dated July 29, 1994, Chittick wrote that "The knee joint found lower and away from the 40% complete skeleton was the item Johanson used in his claim that 'Lucy' walked upright." Johanson argues that the 1973 knee joint is of the same species as "Lucy" on the grounds of anatomical similarity, and points to it as one of several pieces of evidence that the species, and therefore "Lucy," walked upright

that was also from your source. www.talkorigins.org...

so we have johanson saying "oh, well, this isn't the knee that belonged to lucy, but its of the same species, based on it being bipedal" ya, ok. anyone looking at these claims seriously has to just laugh.

Regarding all four of the Australopithecus types, we find the following "Lord Zuckerman (Dr. Solly Zuckerman), a famous British anatomist,...had a team of scientists, rarely numbering less than four, who studied the fossils of Australopithecus for 15 years. They used the most sophisticated methods of anatomical study available to analyze these fossils. After many years of study and research, Lord Zuckerman declared that Australopithecus did not walk upright, and that these creatures were not intermediate between ape and man. Lord Zuckerman's team concluded that they were not the same as any modern ape living today, but they were, nevertheless, nothing more than apes." ([1], p.84) He added, "...the anatomical basis for the claim that (they) walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman primates, that it remains unacceptable.

my mention of the piltdown man is merely to show that evolutionists don't look at the evidence, but accept it unquestioned.

yes, i am taking my information from sources. or would you rather me make wild claims without any evidence? i've stated the source i used in the previous article, not sure how you could miss it.

Scientists have concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases.

Normal variation in human skulls has not been taken into consideration by evolutionists. This modern human skull, for example, has the prominent brow ridge that supposedly was the mark of a human ancestor.

emporium.turnpike.net...

now, do you have sources to back up your claim about neanderthals?

Arthritis (or rickets) does not produce individuals with skeletons resembling Neanderthals.

it doesn't? rudolf virchow is an expert on rickets.

On the Neanderthal finds, medical expert Rudolf Virchow declared, "The curved leg bones were the result of rickets (vitamin deficiency)...the knots of bone above the eyes had been caused by damage to the skull, and other special features of the skeleton were the result of arthritis deformans.

biased opinion? *cough*

The problem is that because we know the `end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin, pro-evolution

The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.

There were once considered to be 180 vestigial organs (organs of no use that evolutionists use to say we evolved out of). Today, there are medically regarded as being no vestigial organs. For example, the appendix is noted as able to fight infection in early life and tonsils destroy harmful bacteria.

emporium.turnpike.net...

its a sad day when providing sources for your claims is ridiculed. stick to facts and finding truth, i find almost all evolutionists use the exact same excuse when they can't refute something "creationist lies". it doesn't help the debate any, so refrain from using such logic.

edit to add: i missed your link on neanderthals, terribly sorry, i have to resort to copy and pasting your posts into notepad so that i can address your points in order, and it doesn't show links.

Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse 1983).

from your source. www.talkorigins.org...

so there goes another "pre-human" down the toilet! just a human.

evolution wouldn't have to keep changing "its opinion" if it followed the evidence in the first place. but it seems we have people making claims about evidence that isn't backed up scientifically, so it fits the theory.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

Originally posted by ashanu90
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

i bet aside form those few flaws that you know nothing about evolution
do you think we believe we evolved from chimps? thats crazy we have a common ancestor
sorry i blew away your mountain of evidence with my death ray of logic

i'm well aware of that. now please, confront the evidence. your "death ray of logic" is a statement not backed up by any proof. "few flaws" is a dramatic understatement.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


didnt somebody already point out that there are many neanderhal skelotons that show no signs of disease? nuff said
i imagine some of those examples you have are true, and may are just biased against evolution
im sure they have found many skelotons of the people we evolved from that showed no sign of disease if you want me to post something ill look into it more

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside, I have got you man! If mutations do not have a selective advantage then NO evolution can occur. Excessive intelligence leads to aberrant behaviour. Our most intelligent people do not conform to normal behaviour. Chimps are intelligent but not capable of recursive thought - e.g. 'I think you thought I was angry' An extra intelligent chimp with aberrant behavoiur would not survive in the social milieu of other chimps. Please excuse the solipsistic arguments.

Mutations are environmentally situational, and in that regard often very subtle and definitely accumulative through time. That is--what is an 'advantage' or not is affected by minute specific pressures present in the given environment at that time. Figuring out what that advantage is/was can be difficult, or impossible for animals going about their behavorial business right in front of us (including our own species), and is nearly impossible to determine through the fossil record.

They can guess, but when pushed, most anthropologists, and paleontologists will tell you much of what is said about evolutionary pressures and consequences (particularly those manifest primarily as behavior) is just guessing, or (especially if they disagree with a theory) out and out hand waving. They start a lot of sentences on such subjects with 'We think that they...' Or 'We speculate that this *blank*, and that is why they evolved *such and such*'.

This includes all of those variations and nuances of neurologic, and biochemical manifestations that we ultimately interpret as behavior, or specifically (as you reference), advantageous (or not) complex social behavior; which is (arguably) the most subtle and difficult to interpret, and the most subject to being effected by environmental pressures.

On another note, a high comparative intelligence is not necessarily always present with a lack of social acuity, or socially aberrant behavior, (in human beings or any other social animal). This is not a given. I'm sorry.

Also, the behavior you are specifically referencing in chimpanzee's here is more akin to metacognition then recursive thought. There are many studies that quite definitively prove that chimpanzee's are indeed capable of this (the former at least, and possibly even the latter.)

Long story short, the base line premise is that evolution is often, largely a crap shoot. Something goes 'wrong', you get a mutation, it either proves to be an advantage or a disadvantage. Most often, it's a disadvantage, and said mutation has a hard time staying in the gene pool. End of the line. Failed experiment.

Sometimes however, the stars align so-to-speak and the evironmental pressures line up with a given mutation and a new path is started. The new evolution begins to be able to explore a new, and different environmental niche, therefor exposing the species to new, and different environmental pressures, and the opportunity for yet more successful (or not) mutations.

Having said that, the DNA evidence is clear that human beings and chimps share a commmon ancestor somewhere back there. Period.

All of the above (and please take this in context) boils down to this: Biological mutations occur. Said mutations that are successful in response to environmental pressures result in fundamental genetic changes. A.K.A evolution. We don't know why exactly we evolved some of the behavioral things that define us as human, and there is no real way to tell currently. We don't know when exactly environmental pressures caused one group of apes to evolve into chimps and the other into humans but it happened.

I apologize if I seem pedantic, or even condescending. It's actually not my intention. I don't think you are stupid, but it seems to me like you are dismissing, or glossing over pretty much half of the most basic premise for evolutionary theory.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

first off, i am perfectly aware that evolutionists don't believe we desended from modern day monkies, i was merely being general.

You are really admitting that the first assertion, and the entire basis for your posting in this thread is a premeditated lie?

Starting your post off with a lie is 'being general'? I take it that everything else in your post is a premeditated lie and not your opinion either.

the author is speculating that johanson misunderstood the question, and then rephrases the question, and changes one word to make it seem like anyone could make this mistake. he replaces "the" with "lucy".

First of all, Johanson's paper specified exactly what the relationship was, so the record is correct. Lots of people misunderstand questions at Q&A sessions and give answers that don't fit the actual question. Indeed, anyone could have done it. By the way, the author is not saying that the questioner said 'Lucy's Knee', only that that may have been what was meant. Johanson clearly understood him to be refering to the 1973 knee.

That you are building a mountain out of a molehill is an extreme understatement at both ends. I have to assume you know this and are just repeating more premeditated lies.

johanson had plenty of time to clarify what he meant, but he never did.

And much effort was put in to clarify and correct the error. If you had read the link you would know that Lippard went to extraordinary lengths to set record straight.

To summarize: At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

edit to add: i missed your link on neanderthals, terribly sorry, i have to resort to copy and pasting your posts into notepad so that i can address your points in order, and it doesn't show links.

I understand. I do the same thing. But I usually read the post I am commenting on before I start cutting and pasting.

Had you read that link, you would have found: (from the Neanderthal link in my previous post)

In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.

Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970), claims that Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were caused by a post-Flood ice age: heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter and wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D sources, would all have combined to cause severe rickets.

This explanation fails for many reasons:

* Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.
* Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the growing ends of the long bones of the body. Radiology courses routinely teach the symptoms. It has never (so far as I know) been detected in Neandertals or Homo erectus.
* Even Virchow did not claim rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the first Neandertal Man fossil had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least, although Lubenow says that this diagnosis "is as valid today as when [Virchow] first made it".
* The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).
* Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban humans).
* The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis.
* Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Noahaic Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find far larger numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans?

(to be continued...)

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


(...continued from above post)

my mention of the piltdown man is merely to show that evolutionists don't look at the evidence, but accept it unquestioned.

But that is exactly how piltdown man was discovered to be a fraud, by evolutionists looking at the evidence and questioning it. Its an absurd statement to make. In fact that is the only relevance Piltdown has in science to this day: as an object lesson on questioning the evidence. Piltdown man avoided review for a variety of reasons all conspiring to keep a 'proper' review on the backburner: an immature science, an eager public and a sensationalist press, World War I, working out of the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", and World War II. But science triumphed. The discovery of the Piltdown Fraud is a scientific success, not an embarassment as you would make it out to be.

And this is obviously another of your lies, because you know that Creationists are the group that is guilty of looking claims and accepting them without questioning.

yes, i am taking my information from sources. or would you rather me make wild claims without any evidence? i've stated the source i used in the previous article, not sure how you could miss it.

Why would your first response be to not show evidence? I would have you cite your sources, that is all.

You cut several quotes which included numbered bullets, obviously not numbered by you because they started at 11. That is how I knew you were cutting and pasting. There is no problem with that IF you mark it out in text as an extract or quote and IF you cite the author or link to the site. It is simple courtesy.

Several posts later you did indeed provide a link to another source which also contained a numbered list, but the two lists had entirely different points number 11. It is unclear that the source is the same for both extracts, however the site you did quote is apparantly a nest of numbered lists, and I'm not going troll through all pages to find the correct one.

Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse 1983).

from your source. www.talkorigins.org...

so there goes another "pre-human" down the toilet! just a human.

But see how easy it is to actually cite your sources (good on you) and get it completely wrong.

On that talkorigins page that quote was itself in a quote box holding it out from the rest of the text, and the context explained it as an example of a misinformed claim from creationists. You completely ignored the authors explanation of why it is wrong, but I suppose you could be forgiven because it was so far away, being immediatly below the quote box and all.

Actually, Neandertals are usually classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists claimed that the differences were a result of various diseases or environmental factors, and they were wrong. For Parker to claim that creationists won this debate is a rewriting of history.

evolution wouldn't have to keep changing "its opinion" if it followed the evidence in the first place. but it seems we have people making claims about evidence that isn't backed up scientifically, so it fits the theory.

What does one do with new evidence? People who made classification judgements base on best evidence in the 1950's don't have the same best evidence we have in 2010. Fore example, DNA evidence is demonstrating that those folks got a lot of things right, but it is correcting a lot of things too.
In one sentence you are accusing scientists of closing their mind to evidence (over Piltdown) and now you are suggesting that that is exactly what they should do. So would you have scientists ignore new evidence in order maintain a status quo or continue to refine their knowledge as new evidence comes to light?

Don't bother answering, that is a rhetorical question.

I know what exactly what Creationists want to happen. They have already closed their minds to the reality of and beauty of existence and don't want to know anything further about it. And their only recourse is to lie about those who are fascinated by magnificence of universe and the natural world.

[edit on 27/4/2010 by rnaa]

Why is it assumed by evolutionists that the various species had to develope from one source?

Why couldn't they have developed from their own matrix or grouping of elements; so many electrons; so many protons etc.

Will they next say that the Elements evolved one from the other?

reply to post by OhZone

Why is it assumed by evolutionists that the various species had to develope from one source?

They don't assume that. They draw conclusions from the evidence available, including (but not only) fossil data and DNA evidence.

Possibly it is an incorrect conclusion. Why don't you become a biologist and try to work it out?

Why couldn't they have developed from their own matrix or grouping of elements; so many electrons; so many protons etc.

Well they did do that, obviously. But evolution is silent on the matter, because evolution only talks about the changes in living organisms.

There is relatively small number possible 'matrix or grouping' of elements that would result in life on this planet. Those 'matrix or grouping' of elements are called 'organic molecules'. These 'organic molecules' have been detected in many places in the universe, not just on Earth. So it is reasonable to conclude that those organic molecules existed on Earth before there was life.

The process of how those non-living organic molecules became life in the first place is called 'abiogenisis'. There is no current commonly accepted Theory of Abiogenesis but it is getting closer and there are some good hypotheses that need to be 'merged'. I posted a video earlier in the thread describing the current state of the work.

Will they next say that the Elements evolved one from the other?

Actually 'they' have been saying that for quite some time. I refer you to the both the Big Bang theory and to Physical Chemistry (especially with regard to the breakdown of radioactive elements). But again, that has nothing to do with evolution per se.


[edit on 27/4/2010 by rnaa]

Do evolutionists believe in Abiogenesis? I know they aren't the same but people try to say they are but that just shows their ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject. I feel the need to infer that they can be used together since I can't see one without the other. Evolution can't happen if Abiogenesis is false and vice-versa.

Also, I feel the need to express that people, in general, seem to confuse scientific evolution with 'every day' evolution. I don't know if there is a scientific definition but what I mean by 'every day' evolution, which is most likely politically incorrect , is that we, as humans, evolve in our knowledge and understanding of all things. For example, the early wheel was probably used for many functions: maybe a table to write things down on, but then developed it's own function and "evolved" into many things we use today; like wheel-barrows, cars, chairs and whatever else we can creatively come up with. I just wish creationists would stop generalizing evolution to prove a point even though I do believe it myself.

The last sentence may come back to bite me but I wanted to be honest in my opinion(s).

Also, I want to point out that 'evolution' doesn't retract or detract from 'creation' because evolution describes the process in which life changes or adapts, but does not explain the process by which life came into existence; that again is Abiogenesis. I know for certain that evolution and creationism must agree with this. We've been doing it for as long as we've been here. Look at us as a human race 2,000 years ago compared to now; you would agree we've evolved in many aspects. If not, you are just flat out ignorant.

The conflicting issues between evolution and creationism is the 'common ancestry'. Evolutionist's believe natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. is just something every organism is "designed" for naturally. Creationists argue that God created all living things in 6 days and we are who we are regardless and no mutation will change us into something else.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by novastrike81]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by novastrike81]

reply to post by novastrike81

Do evolutionists believe in Abiogenesis? I know they aren't the same but people try to say they are but that just shows their ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject. I feel the need to infer that they can be used together since I can't see one without the other. Evolution can't happen if Abiogenesis is false and vice-versa.

You are correct.

It is certainly valid to infer that a Theory of Abiogenesis could inform the "Theory of Evolution". But, IMO, only from the standpoint of helping biologists understand the processes involved in the evolution of the very first life forms into the very second life forms.

Furthermore, the findings from Evolutionary Theory and Biology in general can help limit focus the parameters for an Abiogenesis scenario that would lead to the kind of life we have on the planet.

But "Evolutionists" do not 'believe' in Abiogenesis, 'believe' is not the right word. They know and understand that life began 'somehow'. How it started is not part of 'The Study of Evolution' and the 'Study of Evolution' does not depend on how it was started in any way. Evolution applies only to life, not to non-life.

However, 'The Study of Evolution' is not the only thing in Biology and Abiogenesis is certainly an issue of study with in the wider discipline of Biology (with help from Chemistry and Physics of course) and is definitely being worked on.

Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by novastrike81

 

Do evolutionists believe in Abiogenesis? I know they aren't the same but people try to say they are but that just shows their ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject. I feel the need to infer that they can be used together since I can't see one without the other. Evolution can't happen if Abiogenesis is false and vice-versa.

You are correct.

It is certainly valid to infer that a Theory of Abiogenesis could inform the "Theory of Evolution". But, IMO, only from the standpoint of helping biologists understand the processes involved in the evolution of the very first life forms into the very second life forms.

Furthermore, the findings from Evolutionary Theory and Biology in general can help limit focus the parameters for an Abiogenesis scenario that would lead to the kind of life we have on the planet.

But "Evolutionists" do not 'believe' in Abiogenesis, 'believe' is not the right word. They know and understand that life began 'somehow'. How it started is not part of 'The Study of Evolution' and the 'Study of Evolution' does not depend on how it was started in any way. Evolution applies only to life, not to non-life.

However, 'The Study of Evolution' is not the only thing in Biology and Abiogenesis is certainly an issue of study with in the wider discipline of Biology (with help from Chemistry and Physics of course) and is definitely being worked on.

Does that answer your question?

Yes it does. I might be opening a new can of worms but I must ask: why are we creationists arguing with evolutionists then? We should be arguing with Abiogensisisisis.. i don't know the plural of that word. Most of our arguments are about the beginning so it makes more logical sense to argue with them if we so desire. New petition to leave evolutionists alone? All in favor? Aye! *off to find those pesky Abiogensisisisis* (end sarcasm) -- I couldn't help myself.

Still waiting for a creationist to reply to my question regarding mutations that cause suffering.

Cant blame the devil for that one, and free will plays no part in a mutation.

So is it were God made a mistake in our design ?

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
Still waiting for a creationist to reply to my question regarding mutations that cause suffering.

Cant blame the devil for that one, and free will plays no part in a mutation.

So is it were God made a mistake in our design ?

I haven't really siffed through all the pages to find your original question unless that is your original question. So if you want to ask the question in its entirety so I can give a clear answer that would be great! Just saying "mutations cause suffering" doesn't really make sense since it's not in a question format.