About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

I know that. But you still use YEC arguments at times. If you don't like people thinking that you are a YEC then do not use their arguments.

That doesn't matter unless you want to devolve to magic elements of natural selection including abiogenesis. It's not that I don't like people thinking that I am a YEC. I am clarifying what I believe and whether you think it's YEC, I'll just keep on mentioning I don't believe the earth was created in several days of 24 hour duration. As it seems YECs do. Because there is clear EVIDENCE of strata that take a long time to develop, even from hot pools coming from deep down.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you don't hold YEC opinions, how do you explain the succession of fossils from the Ediacarian and Cambrian periods to the Quaternary?

First I guess I need to understand what YECs believe I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do scientists know when gorillas and/or bonobos evolved to their present state? After all, aren't they supposed to come from an "Unknown Common Ancestor" of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees maybe?

And significant differences ok. From early humans and now. But nothing maybe about gorilla changing The surmisal is that somewhere down the line there was a "common ancestor," giving way to gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. The question arises as to DNA and dear little Lucy. So let me review if I haven't gone over this before. Was Lucy analyzed for DNA? Perhaps we can start there. Please be patient with me as you have been and thank you for your kind forbearance.

I do not know. What difference would it make?

Lucy is way too old for DNA analysis.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not know. What difference would it make?

Lucy is way too old for DNA analysis.

Because -- and I say this in the manner of a question for you to verify -- isn't DNA of gorillas compared with human DNA? But Lucy's bones are too old to analyze, is that it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because -- and I say this in the manner of a question for you to verify -- isn't DNA of gorillas compared with human DNA? But Lucy's bones are too old to analyze, is that it?

Yes, gorillas are alive today. It is easy to compare DNA. Lucy was millions of years ago. The DNA has long since degraded.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, gorillas are alive today. It is easy to compare DNA. Lucy was millions of years ago. The DNA has long since degraded.

OK. which leads me to a few more questions. And the reason I ask is because no matter how I figure it, there is no finding of actual evidence from that UCA to gorillas and hominids and humans. But genetically they are not the same because -- gorillas remain gorillas, humans remain humans. And I still want to find out more about genetics. Racial characteristics and differences are not the same as those between gorillas and bonobos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. which leads me to a few more questions. And the reason I ask is because no matter how I figure it, there is no finding of actual evidence from that UCA to gorillas and hominids and humans. But genetically they are not the same because -- gorillas remain gorillas, humans remain humans. And I still want to find out more about genetics. Racial characteristics and differences are not the same as those between gorillas and bonobos.

Stop. When you say "no evidence" you only demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Let's go over that again, okay?

And please quit making silly YEC arguments. If being compared to a YEC irritates you then do not copy their arguments that have been refuted a thousand times.

 

[YoursTrue]

Stop. When you say "no evidence" you only demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Let's go over that again, okay?

And please quit making silly YEC arguments. If being compared to a YEC irritates you then do not copy their arguments that have been refuted a thousand times.

Here we go again -- ok, go over what is considered "evidence." I am not copying YEC arguments.As you already know, I do not agree with YEC's that the earth was created in several 24-hour "days." I don't really know what YEC's believe in full, perhaps you do. Because a DAY in the Bible can certainly be longer than 24 hours. Or shorter than 24 hours. So I leave you with that thought right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go again -- ok, go over what is considered "evidence." I am not copying YEC arguments.As you already know, I do not agree with YEC's that the earth was created in several 24-hour "days." I don't really know what YEC's believe in full, perhaps you do. Because a DAY in the Bible can certainly be longer than 24 hours. Or shorter than 24 hours. So I leave you with that thought right now.

The "gorillas stay gorillas" argument is a YEC argument. You do not know the YEC's that use it.

But back to evidence. Scientific evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,["

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

The requirement for a testable hypothesis or theory is what keeps scientists honest. If one does not have a testable concept one cannot have theory. That definition is also one that shows creation "scientists" to be cowards. Creation "scientists" are not scientists since they do not follow the scientific method. They are afraid to test their ideas because they do not want to see them fail even if they are wrong. Scientists on the other hand want to be right more than anything else. So if a theory or hypothesis fails it is not the end of the world And even better the failure usually points us closer to the right answer.

 

[Heyo]

Do scientists know when gorillas and/or bonobos evolved to their present state? After all, aren't they supposed to come from an "Unknown Common Ancestor" of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees maybe?

And significant differences ok. From early humans and now. But nothing maybe about gorilla changing The surmisal is that somewhere down the line there was a "common ancestor," giving way to gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. The question arises as to DNA and dear little Lucy. So let me review if I haven't gone over this before. Was Lucy analyzed for DNA? Perhaps we can start there. Please be patient with me as you have been and thank you for your kind forbearance.

Sorry, to you and to @Subduction Zone, who I leave alone with you now but my patience is used up. You are so ignorant about all the topics touched and where you are not ignorant, you are often misinformed by YEC falsehoods. Without a structured, ground up education your questions will remain all over the place and you'll forget the answers as you have no context to put them in. Geology, nuclear physics, evolutionary biology, genetics, palaeontology and anthropology are each fields of study that require tens of hours even for the most basic crash courses to bring you into a position where you can reasonably ask questions.
If you think you don't have the time now, plan to get some education in the future.

 

[YoursTrue]

Stop. When you say "no evidence" you only demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Let's go over that again, okay?

And please quit making silly YEC arguments. If being compared to a YEC irritates you then do not copy their arguments that have been refuted a thousand times.

OK, where is the evidence of a Common Ancestor that is said yet to be "unknown" that burgeoned out branches or species or types such as gorillas, monkeys, bonobos, chimpanzees and, of course, hominids. Where is the "evidence" of a Common Ancestor?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, to you and to @Subduction Zone, who I leave alone with you now but my patience is used up. You are so ignorant about all the topics touched and where you are not ignorant, you are often misinformed by YEC falsehoods. Without a structured, ground up education your questions will remain all over the place and you'll forget the answers as you have no context to put them in. Geology, nuclear physics, evolutionary biology, genetics, palaeontology and anthropology are each fields of study that require tens of hours even for the most basic crash courses to bring you into a position where you can reasonably ask questions.
If you think you don't have the time now, plan to get some education in the future.

OK, meantime it's basically a theory, not fact, and unproved, regardless of how you see it proved, not proved, evidence or lack of evidence, I realize you think I am missing something. I agree that nuclear physics requires lots of study time, so do good lab tests, Meantime... I'd love to study more about nuclear physics, but I leave that to others right now. Have a good one, thanks for your consideration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, where is the evidence of a Common Ancestor that is said yet to be "unknown" that burgeoned out branches or species or types such as gorillas, monkeys, bonobos, chimpanzees and, of course, hominids. Where is the "evidence" of a Common Ancestor?

In our DNA. It is clear from the similarities of humans and chimps and the patters of similarities that we are related. And yes, this was a testable hypothesis. And it was confirmed. There were several tests. One that is easy to understand one that involves the number of chromosomes of humans and other great apes. We have 23 chromosome pairs and other great apes have 24. This on the face of it looks good for creationists, but we know of many cases where chromosome pair numbers can vary in closely related species. If we are related then either we lost a pair, which would have to have been by fusion of two chromosomes. Or, and this is far more unlikely, three different times the other great apes would have had to have had a chromosome split.

A bit of background on chromosomes. There are groups of genes on the end of chromosomes that are essentially buffers. The do not really do anything except to protect the chromosome. They are called telomeres. And in the center of chromosomes there is another marker called a centromere. (Hey! I spelled them both correctly without looking them up!) When we first began to be able to analyze DNA this was put to the test. It turns out that our Chromosome #2 is the result of a fusion of two separate chromosomes. There are telomeres in the middle of the chromosome and two centromeres, one functioning and one not. Here are a couple of articles on that. the first one is simpler and the later one is from a Christian source and is in more detail:

Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2

Denisovans, Humans and the Chromosome 2 Fusion - Article - BioLogos

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, meantime it's basically a theory, not fact, and unproved, regardless of how you see it proved, not proved, evidence or lack of evidence, I realize you think I am missing something. I agree that nuclear physics requires lots of study time, so do good lab tests, Meantime... I'd love to study more about nuclear physics, but I leave that to others right now. Have a good one, thanks for your consideration.

You do not understand what a theory is. Theories explain facts. In fact they are facts themselves. Is gravity a fact There is also a theory of gravity. You are conflating scientific theories and the word "theory" as used by layman. You won't come closer in the world to a "fact" than a well accepted scientific theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't matter unless you want to devolve to magic elements of natural selection including abiogenesis. It's not that I don't like people thinking that I am a YEC. I am clarifying what I believe and whether you think it's YEC, I'll just keep on mentioning I don't believe the earth was created in several days of 24 hour duration. As it seems YECs do. Because there is clear EVIDENCE of strata that take a long time to develop, even from hot pools coming from deep down.

I missed a claim in this post. There is nothing "magical" about abiogenesis. It is complex chemistry, but that is far from magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

I missed a claim in this post. There is nothing "magical" about abiogenesis. It is complex chemistry, but that is far from magic.

Well, as long as you continue saying that I am a YEC, I may keep calling evolution by "natural selection" magic. There is plenty that is inexplicable about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, as long as you continue saying that I am a YEC, I may keep calling evolution by "natural selection" magic. There is plenty that is inexplicable about evolution.

Where did I ever say that you are a YEC?

And no, there is plenty that you do not understand about evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not understand what a theory is. Theories explain facts. In fact they are facts themselves. Is gravity a fact There is also a theory of gravity. You are conflating scientific theories and the word "theory" as used by layman. You won't come closer in the world to a "fact" than a well accepted scientific theory.

There are no facts in this case. The fact is that there are gorillas. There are insects, those are facts. It is NOT a fact to say that humans evolved from unknown, now-extinct primates. No matter what the theory. So if you're going to give me facts, please do that. Thank you for the conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no facts in this case. The fact is that there are gorillas. There are insects, those are facts. It is NOT a fact to say that humans evolved from unknown, now-extinct primates. No matter what the theory. So if you're going to give me facts, please do that. Thank you for the conversation.

Now you are in denial again which is why we need to go back to evidence. There is clear evidence for evolution. What we see in our shared genetics is what is predicted by the theory. That makes it evidence for evolution.

And yes, even though you do not like it, it is a fact that we evolved from an ancestor that we share with other apes. The evidence for it is endless. I only gave you one small piece. It would take years and years to go over it all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where did I ever say that you are a YEC?

And no, there is plenty that you do not understand about evolution.

There's plenty that evolutionists don't know about evolution. I mean they believe in the theory. But there is plenty that they don't know about it. And make adjustments, but -- it's still estimates being pushed into the mold. They are going to stick to the theory because that is how they see life. That black hole is still there, you know like Darwin's Black Hole. I've read enough to realize and think life 'just' doesn't come about by itself. And I won't get into Lucy now about how dumb she was and supposedly elevated by natural selection over a long period of time to -- humans? So because I am settling my conversation on evolution and not creation, yes, the more I think about it, the more I realize it (life and growth) is more than what MY mind (maybe not yours) can fathom. Because of the fabulous complexity of life. Cells, DNA, molecules and other fabulous things.
Why do I have skin? Why do I have a stomach and regulatory system? That is because that is what God wants.
Now while I'm willing to continue, and I appreciate what you bring to the table, and your patience with me, perhaps we can continue and I will be disappointed if we cannot, but I do understand. So thank you again.