Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not really. I can name several that do not. And you are misusing the term conjecture. In fact it is not wise to use that term when talking about a science that you do not understand since it puts the burden of proof upon you.
This I know -- Bats and humans do not, cannot interbreed, to be specific, a bat with a human. Unless, of course, one believes in Batman? or Bela Lugosi type stuff. The idea that some intermediate population passed out (such as Denisovans) is beyond recognition. You may believe it, others may believe it, I don't believe they interbred with the next thing in the scale of evolution eventually becoming humans. There is simply no proof. It's all conjecture. And the idea that the next step to humans remained while the Denisovans died out is not something I can imagine. Even with genetic similarities.
LOL, scientists support my claim that absolutely no distinct proof is there about the first cells evolving to possible multiple cells of the same kind or different kinds (types) and then branching out to become plants and the various types of animals. Yes, it's all conjecture about that.
AND (to Subduction Zone) -- since you profess to know so much more, using the correct terminology and such, the burden is on you to explain it to novices such as myself. If you don't want to (or can't), that's ok with me.
There is simply nothing to support the idea (ok, not conjecture) that from one, ten, or thousands of unicellular organisms came more of the same kind evolving into different forms. I can imagine ideas -- that may have support from some scientists, but because there is no real solid substantial proof in the form of anything except an idea, it is just that: an imagined idea. (oops - don't want to say conjecture.)
You have no clue. All you have is misinterpretation. Now please, support your claim or take it back.
This again is a foolish post when you have no clue. By stating something as a fact you put the burden of proof upon you.
YoursTrue.
It doesn't "hinge on the beginning." Evolution describes how existing life operates. How that life got there in the first place is a different field of study.
Thank you. And how the "first living thing," or thingS coming up at the same time -- plural, and then developing is another question. I am not really discussing abiogenesis here, although it must come into the equation, but I leave that out now. Although it's obvious that scientists for the main, do believe that something of a lifeform came from chemicals with no lifeform. From what I have read in journals and explanations of the more erudite kind than my uneducated self, there are certainly comparisons in genes and structures between organisms. And disagreements among scientists, with new findings overturning the thinking of what had been accepted before that.
How can I take it back when all you have is hearsay about what might have-could have happened. Have a nice read with the following:
Yes, yes, yes! When I show you what other scientists have said, you just won't pay attention. Or -- let yourself understand. For instance, try this and see if you understand:
Oops. Here's an example of another drastic change in evolutionary thinking, guess there was no real proof of what was taught for truth for 50 years. Says the article, "For 50 years, researchers have thought that moths evolved ears to detect the ultrasonic calls of attacking bats—but a new study shows that ears came first." A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
So, what you are saying is that conclusions based on scientific investigation aren't always accurate and are later corrected by further research?
That wasn't my point. The point is that what has been accepted as truth is sometimes rejected later on.
It's not just "so what." It is that sometimes (as the referenced article shows) conclusions based on comparing fossils or burgeoning embryos are one year (or for decades) said to be true, and later said to be untrue. I have no quibble with the fact that the new research is said to turn about the time difference between developing ears, that's what it says, yet it was taught as true for decades, and then it is said to be no longer true.