How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[gnostic]

No? So it's a fantasy you think.

But it is more of fantasy that dust can transform into a living adult human (Genesis 2:7):

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

...or in the Quran, from clay into a living adult human (Quran 15:26, 28):

We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;

Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape;

In both, it is not just fantasy, they are primitive Middle Eastern superstitions.

Humans are not made of dusts, soil or clay; humans as in all life are made of cells.

One of the main particles in both soil and clay are silicates, which don't exist in any cell in a human body.

 

[Astrophile]

What fossils prove or show is that they were part of the anatomy of something. They do not prove evolution in any manner whatsoever.

One thing that fossils prove or show is that they were part of the anatomy of living things that belonged to a specific species and that had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc. back to a time when fossils belonging to the same species did not exist.

Remember, all life comes from life of nearly the same kind. Complex animals and plants do not originate by spontaneous generation, nor was there a first member of the genus Homo or of the genus Australopithecus whose parents belonged to a different genus. Instead there were gradual transitions from one species to another, like the transitions between the different colours of the spectrum.

Another thing that fossils show is that they were part of the anatomy of living things that belonged to a specific species that no longer exists. Why do you think that these species no longer exist? Do you think that all members of the species Australopithecus africanus, for example, took Hamlet's advice to Ophelia ('Get thee to a nunnery') and decided not to become breeders of potential sinners? Alternatively, do you think that they did what comes naturally and that small changes from one generation to the next accumulated to become large changes over hundreds of thousands of years, so that their distant descendants were no longer Australopithecus but had to be classified as Homo?

 

[Astrophile]

I am looking at some writings of and about Stuart Newman regarding abrupt origin of forms. Have you heard of him? I've concluded as much as possible within the scope of looking at writings purporting the theory of evolution as true, and I have concluded it is simply not true because there is no evidence of such, not even the fossils evidence that evolution of gradual selection is true. Nothing. Zilch. Since that is my conclusion after much discussion, I will now move into the area of sudden emergence of forms. I have read about this before but never really studied it. Thanks again for the discussion and your patience.

I had not heard of Stuart Newman or the abrupt origin of forms. However, from the interview with Suzan Mazur in The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual - Archaeology Magazine Archive , Professor Newman does not appear to be a denier of evolution in the sense of descent with modification. He does not assert that living things came into existence by spontaneous generation, that a god created the first members of every species, or that these first members of a species would be able to interbreed with their living descendants, nor, so far as I can see, does he deny the common ancestry of living things.

As a minor point, contrary to what Newman says, Charles Darwin and James Hutton were not contemporaries. Hutton died on 26 March 1797, nearly twelve years before Darwin (1809-82) was born.

 

[metis]

What mistakes are you talking about? Just to be clear, I accept that Moses lived as written, Jesus lived as written in the holy scriptures. I accept this with reason and faith. So what mistakes are you talking about?

Maybe compare the women's visitation at Jesus' tomb as found in the four gospels, as none of them match. There are many other examples.

And then there are undoubtedly many errors with preachers and theologians.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not sure what you are referring to. The pictures in the link you provided did not have their hair done up with anything. In any event, an artistic interpretation is not a scientific conclusion.

ok, well there are pictures, not of apemen with rubberbands in their hairdo, but here of that famous (or infamous) gradual burgeoning of man from early ape ancestor. Which is, of course, not quite accurate according to the Unknown common Ancestor thing.
Researchers explain why that picture of monkeys turning into humans is wrong (thenextweb.com)
Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

I had not heard of Stuart Newman or the abrupt origin of forms. However, from the interview with Suzan Mazur in The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual - Archaeology Magazine Archive , Professor Newman does not appear to be a denier of evolution in the sense of descent with modification. He does not assert that living things came into existence by spontaneous generation, that a god created the first members of every species, or that these first members of a species would be able to interbreed with their living descendants, nor, so far as I can see, does he deny the common ancestry of living things.

As a minor point, contrary to what Newman says, Charles Darwin and James Hutton were not contemporaries. Hutton died on 26 March 1797, nearly twelve years before Darwin (1809-82) was born.

That is seemingly correct, while he seems to take issue with gradual descent on a continual basis, he apparently is not a denier of the process of lifeforms coming about solely by natural selection or maybe not natural selection. Whatever...
I'll look at that minor point you mention. Of course, it's a minor or major point that genetic sequences are missing among (between) species. Anyway...whatever...so be it...

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe compare the women's visitation at Jesus' tomb as found in the four gospels, as none of them match. There are many other examples.

And then there are undoubtedly many errors with preachers and theologians.

I don't know about you, but when I relate an event, even if I say what someone else said or even what "I" say, I may not quote or repeat it exactly word for word and to me, obviously not you, the differences demonstrate that it is truly recounted by the early witnesses of what happened. That's how I view that point. Meantime, I was reading about an archaelogical discovery recently in the middle east that uncovered very early biblical writings
And, let me say this, while you may love the Catholic Church, it's hard for me to digest that you don't believe the premise it is based on. I won't go any further with that now, since I believe in God Almighty over all, HE is the one that carries the judgment along with Jesus Christ, the one he appointed to judge mankind. "I and the Father are one," as you know Jesus declared. That does not mean anyway that he and the father are three. Or the same person. Anyway, have a good day, thank you for your answer.

 

[metis]

I don't know about you, but when I relate an event, even if I say what someone else said or even what "I" say, I may not quote or repeat it exactly word for word and to me, obviously not you, the differences demonstrate that it is truly recounted by the early witnesses of what happened.

Sorry, but the differences go well beyond that, so maybe read each account and see for yourself.

 

[metis]

Meantime, I was reading about an archaelogical discovery recently in the middle east that uncovered very early biblical writings
And, let me say this, while you may love the Catholic Church, it's hard for me to digest that you don't believe the premise it is based on.

I have a subscription to BAR, and my guess is that you falsely believe that I don't believe the scriptures as you keep making highly judgmental statements at me about this even after I have explained my position over and over again dealing with biblical inerrancy.

Why do you continue to do this? Jesus said to "judge ye not", and yet you do this often-- at least with me. One cannot claim to believe in Jesus but then do the opposite of what he taught. If you persist in this, I will put you permanently on "ignore" as that would make you one who "talks the talk" but doesn't actually "walk the walk".

 

[YoursTrue]

That isn't how it done. Evolution explains the fossils in series over time. It is not the fossil that are forced into the theory.

Kind like it is. But anyway, too bad the "ancient" hominids did not invent motion pictures that captured the emergence of genetic changes leading to the next whatever...

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but the differences go well beyond that, so maybe read each account and see for yourself.

I'm researching this, but before I go into what the Bible says and how I look at it (as well as others), would you say the Catholic Church agrees with you that the accounts are mistaken? Or that they were not true about Jesus' resurrection?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have a subscription to BAR, and my guess is that you falsely believe that I don't believe the scriptures as you keep making highly judgmental statements at me about this even after I have explained my position over and over again dealing with biblical inerrancy.

Why do you continue to do this? Jesus said to "judge ye not", and yet you do this often-- at least with me. One cannot claim to believe in Jesus but then do the opposite of what he taught. If you persist in this, I will put you permanently on "ignore" as that would make you one who "talks the talk" but doesn't actually "walk the walk".

I'm just wondering if you believe Jesus was resurrected in person that he could be seen, and if the Catholic church agrees with you that the gospel resurrection accounts are a MISTAKE???? (just wondering...please do not be offended as the scholar you say you are...) You brought up the accounts as a mistake, and yes, I'm wondering if the church you say you belong to also says they are a mistake? A logical and reasonable question.

 

[syo]

How do we know or not whether a species is new to us or new to the world?

There is no thing as ''new''.

 

[metis]

I'm researching this, but before I go into what the Bible says and how I look at it (as well as others), would you say the Catholic Church agrees with you that the accounts are mistaken?

I'm just wondering if you believe Jesus was resurrected in person that he could be seen, and if the Catholic church agrees with you that the gospel resurrection accounts are a MISTAKE????

Using the word "mistake" pollutes any serious discussion because it's a use of dichotomy that is completely nonsensical. You blew off my previous question dealing with variations on the same narrative [tomb visitation] and now you post something like the above? The only serious question is why am I wasting my time with you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Using the word "mistake" pollutes any serious discussion because it's a use of dichotomy that is completely nonsensical. You blew off my previous question dealing with variations on the same narrative [tomb visitation] and now you post something like the above? The only serious question is why am I wasting my time with you?

You used the word 'mistake,' and when I asked you what mistakes are you talking about, you cited the resurrection accounts of Jesus. So? (P.S. Sorry that I can't answer each and every question as you wish. My time, like yours, is limited, however, I'll try to stick to the subjects of (1) why the accounts of Jesus' resurrection proves that it didn't happen, or it's a 'myth,' and (2) if the religion you belong to also agrees that it's a myth or mistake. Why not? No need to become offended. But I understand if you don't want to answer...

 

[YoursTrue]

Looking at a couple of writings, @metis, one seemingly Catholic resource says this: "Jesus is now living at the "right hand of the Father". He appeared to the frightened Apostles suddenly. "the doors being shut" (Jn 20:19, 26). Whole books can and have been written on the Resurrection of Jesus."
The Resurrection of Jesus (catholiceducation.org)
(Would you think they're just blinded, unlike people like you who claim they are 'mistakes'?)

 

[YoursTrue]

Using the word "mistake" pollutes any serious discussion because it's a use of dichotomy that is completely nonsensical. You blew off my previous question dealing with variations on the same narrative [tomb visitation] and now you post something like the above? The only serious question is why am I wasting my time with you?

I appreciate your time because it really helps to sort things out. So thanks. As I was researching a little more, @metis, I see the following regarding the Catholic Church's teachings on the veracity of the resurrection of Christ: And possible differences in opinion about it.
"But whatever exegetic view as to the visit to the sepulchre by the pious women and the appearance of the angels we may defend, we cannot deny the Evangelists’ agreement as to the fact that the risen Christ appeared to one or more persons."
No? They cannot deny it? That's interesting...I think so. Resurrection | Catholic Answers
(Of course there's more but anyway... )

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Kind like it is. But anyway, too bad the "ancient" hominids did not invent motion pictures that captured the emergence of genetic changes leading to the next whatever...

There would still be people that wouldn't believe the video.

 

[metis]

You used the word 'mistake,' and when I asked you what mistakes are you talking about, you cited the resurrection accounts of Jesus.

This will be my last posting with you as I already have explained this twice.

The gospel narratives dealing with the women/s visitation to Jesus' tomb do not match, thus it is logically impossible for them to be entirely accurate. However, this does not mean nor imply that Jesus' resurrection did not happen.

(1) why the accounts of Jesus' resurrection proves that it didn't happen, or it's a 'myth,' and (2) if the religion you belong to also agrees that it's a myth or mistake.

Neither. See above.

(Would you think they're just blinded, unlike people like you who claim they are 'mistakes'?)

Nonsensical question.

"But whatever exegetic view as to the visit to the sepulchre by the pious women and the appearance of the angels we may defend, we cannot deny the Evangelists’ agreement as to the fact that the risen Christ appeared to one or more persons."
No? They cannot deny it? That's interesting...I think so.

Of course the Catholic Church doesn't deny it, as Jesus' resurrection is a basic teaching of the Church.

Take care as I'm done.

 

[YoursTrue]

This will be my last posting with you as I already have explained this twice.

The gospel narratives dealing with the women/s visitation to Jesus' tomb do not match, thus it is logically impossible for them to be entirely accurate. However, this does not mean nor imply that Jesus' resurrection did not happen.

Neither. See above.

Nonsensical question.

Of course the Catholic Church doesn't deny it, as Jesus' resurrection is a basic teaching of the Church.

Take care as I'm done.

That's ok, because the subject is interesting. And the church you say you belong to disagrees with you in reference to the validity of Jesus' resurrection. As well as the difference in accounts. NO ONE SAW JESUS ACTUAL RESURRECTION as it occurred. But one Catholic tool explains "The main sources which directly attest the fact of Christ’s Resurrection are the Four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul." Then it goes on to say, interestingly enough, "It is not surprising; therefore, that the partial accounts contained in each of the Four Gospels appear at first sight hard to harmonize. But whatever exegetic view as to the visit to the sepulchre by the pious women and the appearance of the angels we may defend, we cannot deny the Evangelists’ agreement as to the fact that the risen Christ appeared to one or more persons."
In actuality, the differences attest to the validity of the account rather than calling them "mistakes."
Yes, what I find interesting also is that some persons claiming to be members of a religion would actually deny what the Bible says, as if Jesus as revealed in the Bible was a MYTH, possibly didn't exist, and some would TEACH to that effect...