• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
For example, dogs are subspecies of wolves. They are not "completely new".
A subspecies will have a lot more in common then differences compared to its parent species.

YEC has maintained that dogs came from wolves...there is no issue with that...your barking at shadows.

Also...without delving into the depths of thedefinition...encyclopaedia Britannica says that speciation IS the creation of new species.

"speciation, the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution"

The idea being it has unique characteristics and or features and is genetically different. Is there something I'm missing? Of course I know there is a lot of debate about the definition...I've used the general/"google" view because I wasnt seeking a known YEC one...that can come later.

I think you're playing games.

Search it for yourself if you have a paid subscription like I do.
 
Last edited:

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
DNA demonstrates that gorilla's and humans, and the other great apes, all share a common ancestor.
i am not so sure about that...there a quite a number of researchers who are world experts in that field who have actually shown that in fact the complete opposite is true. Of course, these experts are immediately thrown out of the party, however, that is a result of the usual humanistic response to such things...if it doesn't fit the model hide it!

I have also found evidence of a consensus on the idea of Ape ancestor is in chaos and not reflective of your view at all. It appears that in fact we are seeing more evidence that points to the conclusions that most evolutionary human origin stories in this area are not compatible with the known fossils we have!

“When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology

“Top-down” studies sometimes ignore the reality that living apes (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and hylobatids) are just the survivors of a much larger, and now mostly extinct, group.

the “bottom-up”approach are prone to giving individual fossil apes an important evolutionary role that fits a preexisting narrative.

“In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time,” Almécija said. “One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins — approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence — have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes.”

“Living ape species are specialized species, relicts of a much larger group of now extinct apes. When we consider all evidence — that is, both living and fossil apes and hominins — it is clear that a human evolutionary story based on the few ape species currently alive is missing much of the bigger picture,” said study co-author Ashley Hammond, an assistant curator in the Museum’s Division of Anthropology.

“Fossil apes and human evolution” by Sergio Almécija, Ashley S. Hammond, Nathan E. Thompson, Kelsey D. Pugh, Salvador Moyà-Solà and David M. Alba, 7 May 2021, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.abb4363
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree that if not checked, humans will render the earth uninhabitable for humans. Do you know the Bible says that?
I did not. Citation, please.
Our numbers already exceed the planet's carrying capacity, and we've already rendered the planet uninhabited by hundreds of species, with new ones going extinct all the time. We're using resources faster than they can be replaced; we're polluting, and we're 'developing' vast tracts of land necessary for biodiversity.
God should rethink that "be fruitful and multiply" thing, IMHO.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"completely new species"?

This tells me you don't really understand what speciation is.
Speciation does not result in a "completely new species".

It results in subspecies.
They aren't "completely new".

For example, dogs are subspecies of wolves. They are not "completely new".
A subspecies will have a lot more in common then differences compared to its parent species.



Google "observed speciation".



Not what speciation is.
And an example so bizar that it seems you have no clue about basic biology either.



One thing is for sure: what you think "speciation" is, does not occur in nature.
I don't know how many times I've steered creationists to educational sites like:
Observed Instances of Speciation
I don't think they read them. They certainly don't respond to the points made, like I do with their links. Nor do they respond to videos.
I think they just want to preach, and aren't really interested in the subjects being discussed.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, you have a flawed definition of what a new species is. You are demanding to see something that would refute the theory of evolution. There is no such thing as a "completely new species". There is no " change of kind" in evolution. You are still an ape because your ancestors never stopped being apes.
So you say. But so far the best I've heard is that humans have an "Unknown Common Ancestor" producing gorillas, monkeys, etc. and humans but scientists just can't find it and maybe there weren't too many of them. Going back to my days before I really learned what the Genesis account says, my response would have been in response to the theory(?) about the UCA, "Yeah, right." But now I'll just say...no evidence supporting the idea.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So you say. But so far the best I've heard is that humans have an "Unknown Common Ancestor" producing gorillas, monkeys, etc. and humans but scientists just can't find it and maybe there weren't too many of them. Going back to my days before I really learned what the Genesis account says, my response would have been in response to the theory(?) about the UCA, "Yeah, right." But now I'll just say...no evidence supporting the idea.
What do you mean by 'find it"? Do you have a great great great great great grandfather following just the male line of descent leading to you? Are you sure? If you can't find him does it mean that he does not exist?

I am pretty sure that grandfather existed. We do not need to find him to know that he was there. Why do you think that we need to find a specific common ancestor? Your objection is groundless.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I did not. Citation, please.
Our numbers already exceed the planet's carrying capacity, and we've already rendered the planet uninhabited by hundreds of species, with new ones going extinct all the time. We're using resources faster than they can be replaced; we're polluting, and we're 'developing' vast tracts of land necessary for biodiversity.
God should rethink that "be fruitful and multiply" thing, IMHO.
Revelation 11:18
But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What do you mean by 'find it"? Do you have a great great great great great grandfather following just the male line of descent leading to you? Are you sure? If you can't find him does it mean that he does not exist?

I am pretty sure that grandfather existed. We do not need to find him to know that he was there. Why do you think that we need to find a specific common ancestor? Your objection is groundless.
I'm not sure if you willfully don't get it. We don't need to find one. Scientists can't but think there is one. Meantime, gorillas stay gorillas, except maybe in the course of Lucy or maybe gorillas weren't around then?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm not sure if you willfully don't get it. We don't need to find one. Scientists can't but think there is one. Meantime, gorillas stay gorillas, except maybe in the course of Lucy or maybe gorillas weren't around then?
Just as you should know that you have the grandfather that I mentioned we do know that we share a common ancestor with gorillas, and you do have to know by now that your last argument was rather ignorant and idiotic. Of course gorillas remain gorillas. The theory of evolution agrees with that. And you of course are still an ape.. When do you think that you stopped being an ape?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Just as you should know that you have the grandfather that I mentioned we do know that we share a common ancestor with gorillas, and you do have to know by now that your last argument was rather ignorant and idiotic. Of course gorillas remain gorillas. The theory of evolution agrees with that. And you of course are still an ape.. When do you think that you stopped being an ape?
That's ridiculous to say that if you go way back on your family tree, you'll find -- what? a gorilla? a monkey?? Oh no, wait. An "Unknown Commion Ancestor" to you and monkeys, bonobos, gorillas, etc.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I don't know how many times I've steered creationists to educational sites like:
Observed Instances of Speciation I don't think they read them. They certainly don't respond to the points made, like I do with their links. Nor do they respond to videos.
I think they just want to preach, and aren't really interested in the subjects being discussed.
If I believed the doctrine (theory) of evolution, I'd believe it was telling me the truth. However, while some skeletons may resemble each other as far as posture goes, and then scientists decide they "evolved," like from Lucy to homo sapiens, I'd go along with it. But I no longer do. It simply cannot be proved, or taken for granted that these things happened by "natural selection." Anyway, have a good day, it was nice talking with you.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What do you mean by 'find it"? Do you have a great great great great great grandfather following just the male line of descent leading to you? Are you sure? If you can't find him does it mean that he does not exist?

I am pretty sure that grandfather existed. We do not need to find him to know that he was there. Why do you think that we need to find a specific common ancestor? Your objection is groundless.
No, it's not at all. Your acceptance of the theory is really without basis except by postulation. As in that which you and others beleve is self-evident. What is self-evident is that Lucy had bones. Humans and whales have bones. There is nothing to show at all that they evolved. This is not to say that whales do not procreate, and humans do not procreate. But humans stay humans, and whales stay whales.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's ridiculous to say that if you go way back on your family tree, you'll find -- what? a gorilla? a monkey?? Oh no, wait. An "Unknown Commion Ancestor" to you and monkeys, bonobos, gorillas, etc.
How can you not get this. If you go back five generations will you find your brothers or sisters? Or maybe a first cousin? I am serious. Would you find those people? And if not why not?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, it's not at all. Your acceptance of the theory is really without basis except by postulation. As in that which you and others beleve is self-evident. What is self-evident is that Lucy had bones. Humans and whales have bones. There is nothing to show at all that they evolved. This is not to say that whales do not procreate, and humans do not procreate. But humans stay humans, and whales stay whales.
Wrong again. But then you are not reasoning rationally here. And no one has claimed that anything is self evident. Well you may have. And yes, there is plenty of evidence. Unfortunately when it comes to the concept of you keep acting like a coward. Why are you afraid to learn what evidence is?

And yes, humans stay humans, and apes stay apes. That means that you are still an ape. In fact you are still a monkey.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
YEC has maintained that dogs came from wolves...there is no issue with that...your barking at shadows.

I don't care what YECs say. I'm talking about what evolution is about and replying to / correcting a claim about speciation.
No speciation event will result in a "completely new" species. I used dogs from wolves as an example to illustrate that.


Also...without delving into the depths of thedefinition...encyclopaedia Britannica says that speciation IS the creation of new species.

Yes. Dogs are a "new" species. But it's not "completely new" in the sense that it is more different then similar then the species it evolved from. That never happens.

New species are always subspecies. And they will always be a lot more similar to their parent species then they are different.

The idea being it has unique characteristics and or features and is genetically different. Is there something I'm missing?

The post I was replying to gave the impression that they were "COMPLETELY" different.
This is not the case.

They are different, yes. Not completely different.
They are far more alike then they are different.

I think you're playing games.

No games. Just clearing up an, at least, ambiguous statement.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
i am not so sure about that...there a quite a number of researchers who are world experts in that field who have actually shown that in fact the complete opposite is true. Of course, these experts are immediately thrown out of the party, however, that is a result of the usual humanistic response to such things...if it doesn't fit the model hide it!

I have also found evidence of a consensus on the idea of Ape ancestor is in chaos and not reflective of your view at all. It appears that in fact we are seeing more evidence that points to the conclusions that most evolutionary human origin stories in this area are not compatible with the known fossils we have!

“When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology

“Top-down” studies sometimes ignore the reality that living apes (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and hylobatids) are just the survivors of a much larger, and now mostly extinct, group.

the “bottom-up”approach are prone to giving individual fossil apes an important evolutionary role that fits a preexisting narrative.

“In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time,” Almécija said. “One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins — approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence — have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes.”

“Living ape species are specialized species, relicts of a much larger group of now extinct apes. When we consider all evidence — that is, both living and fossil apes and hominins — it is clear that a human evolutionary story based on the few ape species currently alive is missing much of the bigger picture,” said study co-author Ashley Hammond, an assistant curator in the Museum’s Division of Anthropology.

“Fossil apes and human evolution” by Sergio Almécija, Ashley S. Hammond, Nathan E. Thompson, Kelsey D. Pugh, Salvador Moyà-Solà and David M. Alba, 7 May 2021, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.abb4363
Quotes out of context without a link are worthless. Let me show you. By your standards the Bible refutes itself. It says:

There is no God

Without some sort of hint you will not find that quote from the Bible. So how are you going to refute it?

You need links so people can see what your quotes say in context.

You did link one source, though I am curious why you did that. It refutes your claims.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Revelation 11:18
But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
I think this was referring more to moral or social ruination than to ecosystem degradation. The idea of Earth as an iron ball in space covered with a crust of rock with a thin film of interactive life forms didn't exist. People lived in very small, local 'worlds'.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm not sure if you willfully don't get it. We don't need to find one. Scientists can't but think there is one. Meantime, gorillas stay gorillas, except maybe in the course of Lucy or maybe gorillas weren't around then?
No. Gorillas, and everything else changes. What is large change but an accumulation of small changes? What would cause the small changes to stop?

Change is usually slow. To see it you'd have to watch for hundreds or thousands of generations. Declaring something impossible because you don't see it in a handful of generations is absurd.

And, most of all, what's the alternative, magic poofing; organisms popping into existence fully formed, from nothing? Why would anyone believe anything so bizarre; something that must be happening all the time, yet has never been witnessed; something that noöne would believe if they saw it reported in the paper?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If I believed the doctrine (theory) of evolution, I'd believe it was telling me the truth. However, while some skeletons may resemble each other as far as posture goes, and then scientists decide they "evolved," like from Lucy to homo sapiens, I'd go along with it. But I no longer do. It simply cannot be proved, or taken for granted that these things happened by "natural selection." Anyway, have a good day, it was nice talking with you.
No, it's not a matter of posture. You're oversimplifying.
It's a matter of sequence, and of dozens of gradual, small anatomical changes over time, becoming gradually more human-like.

We see the same sequences of gradual change in other species, as well. Often it can be mapped in real time, in anatomical, physiological, behavioral and genetic changes. It is a well known and ubiquitous mechanism, yet you deny it. Why?

And, again, what reasonable alternative is there? Magic poofing is a fantastical claim, that's never been observed and with zero supporting evidence.
Natural evolution is observable and relies on simple, commonsense mechanisms.
 
Top