Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How is it false? A dog sheds it's fur in the summer. That's adaptation. You wouldn't say the dog evolved short fur.

Now take a wolf (a canine) and put it in the desert. It will shed it's fur, It's pups will shed it's fur, grandpups will probably still shed a little, great grand pups may be born with short fur, generations later... You have a chihuahua. It is STILL a wolf (canine).

By evolution's own definition, that isn't evolution since a new species has not been created. The wolf didn't grow wings, it didn't grow scales, it's still a wolf (dog, canine). It's not a bird, it's not a snake, it's not a mudcrab, it's not a monkey. It DIDN'T evolve, it adapted to environmental factors like life has always done. How am I wrong?

Seriously, I don't believe in evolution because it makes zero sense. If you could make sense of it, sure I'll buy into it. But I'm not going to believe in gobbledygook just because some fat ass scientists tell me to. It's gotta be real, it's gotta be true, and if something is real and true, it should make sense. Evolution doesn't.

Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.

Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Look man, you clearly know less than nothing about any of this. The things you say and the qeustions you ask are what one would expect of a child being introduced to this totop for the very first time. If you are truly interested in this topic, I suggest you go do some digging and look at one of many university and science society websites that contain beginners primers on this topic. What I suggest you do not do is go to websites full of freakish religious nutballs (like Bond in this thread, or the embarrassing creationist fraud sites) and beg for someone to spoonfeed you information.

 

[alex.harmuth]

How is it false? A dog sheds it's fur in the summer. That's adaptation. You wouldn't say the dog evolved short fur.

Now take a wolf (a canine) and put it in the desert. It will shed it's fur, It's pups will shed it's fur, grandpups will probably still shed a little, great grand pups may be born with short fur, generations later... You have a chihuahua. It is STILL a wolf (canine).

By evolution's own definition, that isn't evolution since a new species has not been created. The wolf didn't grow wings, it didn't grow scales, it's still a wolf (dog, canine). It's not a bird, it's not a snake, it's not a mudcrab, it's not a monkey. It DIDN'T evolve, it adapted to environmental factors like life has always done. How am I wrong?

Seriously, I don't believe in evolution because it makes zero sense. If you could make sense of it, sure I'll buy into it. But I'm not going to believe in gobbledygook just because some fat ass scientists tell me to. It's gotta be real, it's gotta be true, and if something is real and true, it should make sense. Evolution doesn't.

Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.

Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Look man, you clearly know less than nothing about any of this. The things you say and the qeustions you ask are what one would expect of a child being introduced to this totop for the very first time. If you are truly interested in this topic, I suggest you go do some digging and look at one of many university and science society websites that contain beginners primers on this topic. What I suggest you do not do is go to websites full of freakish religious nutballs (like Bond in this thread, or the embarrassing creationist fraud sites) and beg for someone to spoonfeed you information.

Wow so helpful. I'll add you to the tally of people I've beaten in a debate on this topic. I've been doing this for a long time, even wrote a book on it. So I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't feel bad. Evolution falls apart when you question it. It's starting to happen within the scientific community itself.

There is a break among Evolutionary Biologists on if Natural Selection is what drives evolution or not. The challenge is that if all life began as single celled organisms that got energy from the sun, there would be no competition and therefore no need to evolve. Some scientists understand this flaw in the current theory and are trying to change it.
Have a look for yourself. These are evolutionary Biologists from across the world. No Ken Ham bull crap.
Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

You won't hear anything about this in your universities since they know that if it gets out that if some aspects of evolution can be questioned, all of it can be questioned and once that happens, it will collapse.

Have a good week.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

 

[RWS]

That site is just a sign up site, don't know if you've actually visited it yet...

But further research on Philip Skell brings us to a Forbes website where he has a rebuttal to a previous article:
The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution

To sum it up in a nutshell is this paragraph:

It is unseemly and scientifically unfruitful that a major focus in biology should have turned into a war--between those who hold that the history of those unique organisms is purely a matter of chance aggregation from the inorganic world and those who hold that the aggregation must have been designed for a purpose.

He's arguing for the possibility of intelligent design. Which even atheists like me can accept. What we cannot accept, and what Dr Skell never says, is that humans are a product of creation. He believes in evolution, he just believes it was designed for a purpose.

What that purpose is, he doesn't elaborate. I would assume it is to create a highly intelligent being that is capable of leaving Earth and spreading our life (DNA) onto other planets and solar systems. Humans are the sperm of the Earth, I have always said that. We are here to leave the Earth and spread DNA throughout our travels. But whether it be through chance that a mutation creates a higher level organism that survives and reproduces better, or that the mutation was planned by a higher intelligence, the fact remains that we are part of the ape family and that evolution based on natural selection did occur to get us here.

We did not evolve from monkeys, though we are distantly related from a common ancestor. And a white person cannot get a tan and turn black by moving into the tropics. Likewise, a black person cannot turn white by moving into arctic areas. If that's what you think after reading what he said, then that seems a bit odd.... And you probably didn't read it.

 

[james bond]

That site is just a sign up site, don't know if you've actually visited it yet...

But further research on Philip Skell brings us to a Forbes website where he has a rebuttal to a previous article:
The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution

To sum it up in a nutshell is this paragraph:

It is unseemly and scientifically unfruitful that a major focus in biology should have turned into a war--between those who hold that the history of those unique organisms is purely a matter of chance aggregation from the inorganic world and those who hold that the aggregation must have been designed for a purpose.

He's arguing for the possibility of intelligent design. Which even atheists like me can accept. What we cannot accept, and what Dr Skell never says, is that humans are a product of creation. He believes in evolution, he just believes it was designed for a purpose.

What that purpose is, he doesn't elaborate. I would assume it is to create a highly intelligent being that is capable of leaving Earth and spreading our life (DNA) onto other planets and solar systems. Humans are the sperm of the Earth, I have always said that. We are here to leave the Earth and spread DNA throughout our travels. But whether it be through chance that a mutation creates a higher level organism that survives and reproduces better, or that the mutation was planned by a higher intelligence, the fact remains that we are part of the ape family and that evolution based on natural selection did occur to get us here.

We did not evolve from monkeys, though we are distantly related from a common ancestor. And a white person cannot get a tan and turn black by moving into the tropics. Likewise, a black person cannot turn white by moving into arctic areas. If that's what you think after reading what he said, then that seems a bit odd.... And you probably didn't read it.

ID is different from creation, so will stay out of it. Although design with intelligence behind it, such as DNA, is found in God's work.

One of Satan's lies evos believe is that apes started walking upright.

 

[Dalia]

Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :

- Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans

- in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".

- The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.

If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"

 

[Muhammed]

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

The apes we descended from are no more.

What about sasquatch and the yeti?

 

[Hollie]

How is it false? A dog sheds it's fur in the summer. That's adaptation. You wouldn't say the dog evolved short fur.

Now take a wolf (a canine) and put it in the desert. It will shed it's fur, It's pups will shed it's fur, grandpups will probably still shed a little, great grand pups may be born with short fur, generations later... You have a chihuahua. It is STILL a wolf (canine).

By evolution's own definition, that isn't evolution since a new species has not been created. The wolf didn't grow wings, it didn't grow scales, it's still a wolf (dog, canine). It's not a bird, it's not a snake, it's not a mudcrab, it's not a monkey. It DIDN'T evolve, it adapted to environmental factors like life has always done. How am I wrong?

Seriously, I don't believe in evolution because it makes zero sense. If you could make sense of it, sure I'll buy into it. But I'm not going to believe in gobbledygook just because some fat ass scientists tell me to. It's gotta be real, it's gotta be true, and if something is real and true, it should make sense. Evolution doesn't.

Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.

Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Look man, you clearly know less than nothing about any of this. The things you say and the qeustions you ask are what one would expect of a child being introduced to this totop for the very first time. If you are truly interested in this topic, I suggest you go do some digging and look at one of many university and science society websites that contain beginners primers on this topic. What I suggest you do not do is go to websites full of freakish religious nutballs (like Bond in this thread, or the embarrassing creationist fraud sites) and beg for someone to spoonfeed you information.

Wow so helpful. I'll add you to the tally of people I've beaten in a debate on this topic. I've been doing this for a long time, even wrote a book on it. So I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't feel bad. Evolution falls apart when you question it. It's starting to happen within the scientific community itself.

There is a break among Evolutionary Biologists on if Natural Selection is what drives evolution or not. The challenge is that if all life began as single celled organisms that got energy from the sun, there would be no competition and therefore no need to evolve. Some scientists understand this flaw in the current theory and are trying to change it.
Have a look for yourself. These are evolutionary Biologists from across the world. No Ken Ham bull crap.
Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

You won't hear anything about this in your universities since they know that if it gets out that if some aspects of evolution can be questioned, all of it can be questioned and once that happens, it will collapse.

Have a good week.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Its important to be honest and understand that Michael Egnor is a creationist twit. When terms such as "Darwinism" are hurled around, it's a clue to dig deeper. You don't need to dig very deep to find that Egypt is a Disco'tute (Discovery Institute) groupie.

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: Is the Mind What the Brain Does?


Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology."

Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

The apes we descended from are no more.

What about sasquatch and the yeti?

Leave poor Michelle Obama out of it.....

 

[james bond]

Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :

- Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans

- in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".

- The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.

If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"

I agree with most of this. Neanderthals were hominids. Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate. Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans, and lived throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa. They walked upright and not stooped over. Whether they were a subspecies or a separate species is still in question. They appeared to have interbred with modern humans. How they became extinct is up for debate, too.

 

[Syriusly]

Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.

If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.

Ha ha. We talked about this already. People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking. And no aliens means that it's a point for creation. God didn't create aliens. In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory. There plenty of evidence of no aliens. Look up Fermi Paradox.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.


Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.

 

[Syriusly]

There continue to be internet atheists on this forum who cannot do a simple search.

"Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."
...

"One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago."

Introduction to Human Evolution

This is racism at its worst.

And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.

It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.

Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?

I think I've covered how racism was tied in the Darwinism and humans evolving from apes and how it became eugenics and so forth.

Racism existed before Darwin's theory of evolution and exists to this day.

And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.

It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.

Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?

 

[Syriusly]

Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :

- Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans

- in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".

- The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.

If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"

I agree with most of this. Neanderthals were hominids. Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate. Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans,.

'Creation scientists'......lol....that always cracks me up. It's like saying Chiropractic car mechanics......

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wow so helpful.

It is helpful. You know nothing about any of this And probably should not even be talking about it.

No, you are not in a debate, any more than a person who insists his houseplants talk to him is in a debate with botanists.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact

Addresses the 'monkey's as ancestors' myth.

 

[RWS]

Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.

If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.

Ha ha. We talked about this already. People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking. And no aliens means that it's a point for creation. God didn't create aliens. In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory. There plenty of evidence of no aliens. Look up Fermi Paradox.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.


Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.

Agree! But more likely Enki created humans... jus sayin....

 

[RWS]

Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :

- Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans

- in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".

- The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.

If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"

I agree with most of this. Neanderthals were hominids. Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate. Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans,.

'Creation scientists'......lol....that always cracks me up. It's like saying Chiropractic car mechanics......

Well, i did kick my car the other day, and it worked....

 

[Shazoomx4]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

No, but we have the same old ancestor

 

[RWS]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

No, but we have the same old ancestor

Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!

Are you Jewish? And if so, why?

 

[Shazoomx4]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

No, but we have the same old ancestor

Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!

Are you Jewish? And if so, why?

Jewish is not only religion...
I born as Jewish..

 

[james bond]

Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.

If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.

Ha ha. We talked about this already. People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking. And no aliens means that it's a point for creation. God didn't create aliens. In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory. There plenty of evidence of no aliens. Look up Fermi Paradox.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.


Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.

You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking. We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.

I've linked this several times now, but your intellect is sadly lacking.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia