Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

So that can't be evolution is it?

No, wrong. Your argument had nothing to do with evolution.

 

[rational experiences]

In thinking science ...humans is the first position. Exact.

And it's two humans.

The Theist is one selfish self.

The man men agreement.

You think and life he says about water only in theisms came from out of space. First as humans theist comment.

About yourself.

So you know you are not nor can ever be a mass body. Each mass you knew owned it's own one type of energy form. Why no man is God was legal.

Mass was burning first in space. You know it's not about your life. If you're actually quantified as intelligent. Being legals precedence of sound mind.

As today psychometric behaviour testing for employment Informed you don't give self destructive minds any position of control. The worst choice ever given in employment.

Yet some organisations employ with purpose those mind types is the warning.

Intelligence says waters mass was born in space and was not any pre mass.

Droplets were gods tears. Formed water. In context the body O was being destroyed. How consciousness taught it's teaching.

As we live inside water and are mainly water. He says our life in water is knowingly the saviour origin of any burning mass. As it began putting onto it and into it... to have it sealed.

So men said our life historic is the highest god in created spaces history. Background ours space and water only. Nothingness and water.

As gases became the heavens is not biologies water history. Were burning.

Exactly.

As you cannot use human biology as in....formation when you say a human doesn't exist...you cannot theory against us.

Formation as in formation says not human. By theism.

The satanist mind self behaviour the destroyer is a humans teaching. As they claim they're allowed to do anything including abuse of human only as human body owned advice.

First position I'm not a theory of another human.

Legal precedence and was why legal was established to keep human life safe on earth.

To understand how theists misconstrued their owned holy theist advices ...
Motivated on machine type designs only.

Never was a machine theism anything other than for a machine. To be designed built from dusts now.

To react destroy dust energies now inside machine only.

Now for nature gardens bio life is bio life.

Past bio life is now dusts in theism.
Future adult the theist bio life is predicted dust.

Only a bio baby by bio humans owns life's future.

No other theism about dusts supports our lifes future. Just sex.

 

[rational experiences]

There is no "teeth factor." They're not factors, just protective structures that can preserve DNA longer than bones or muscles or blood.
The further removed in biological relatedness, the more dissimilar DNA becomes from ours. Look at the cladogram in post #83, Follow the succession line back in time (down). The DNA from species at each junction becomes less and less similar to ours.

DNA is a footprint leading back in time, but there are other dating methods; tested methods, that give consilient dates for artifacts too old for DNA or soft tissue to remain.

"...more to it than sheer evolution?" That's a statement of personal incredulity, not an evidence-derived conclusion.
What other factors are you hinting at? God?
God isn't a mechanism. It doesn't address 'how?'. God is an agent, and I'd suggest an unneeded, superfluous one, given the known, natural mechanisms driving evolution.

DNA is observed by human choice then compared only.

Comparing says owns body not a human owns some of my owned human biology similarities is mind advised.

You don't make theories after mind is advised.

Theists however do as they are in behaviour pretending also. By making ideas why they think it changed into a human.

The advice body owned began as the living type ended at it being deceased. Is already exactly advised.

Mind advised doesn't lie.

Humans intention why I seek advice first lie.

As intention motivated study is old and present is ...I seek the base distance of all this is. Claiming it God.

If I find it I can resource it forever never ever having to worry about loss of inventions life. To function.

First position...no machine even exists.
Second position man builds machine it doesn't function without fuel.
Third position I only M researching for a fuel.

Lies.

As biology isn't a resource fuel unless you Intend to claim it is. Human is part machine says theist its body absorbs a fuel. I want it so as a machine human first I must burn your inner life as a resource. Position all answers for a theory is exactly placed.

Destroyer theist today his exact theory.

Actual advice the resource in space will exist forever as it consumes energy within its owned body. It's own body isn't any machine.

Why a theist inventor lied.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

What is your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's name?
If you don't know it, does that mean you didn't have a great-great-great-great-great grandfather?
Do you not see how utterly absurd your reasoning is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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​

Ugh, quote mining.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have provided nothing but your opinion reflecting the opinions of others you agree with. No "proof" of your beliefs/opinions, and...no evidence you can explain. With verification as to 'evidencing' (not proving, of course) the theory of evolution. Sooo, have a nice evening. It's been nice/interesting talking with you. Bye for now.

No, that's all you've provided.

The rest of us have provided mountains of evidence indicating evolution is a fact of life.

 

[rational experiences]

A human is seen in flesh status DNA within gods human DNA within.

Human.

You see a huge variable of born humans with a list so long of suffering bodies and mutations.

You look at ancient bodies deformed as compared to now human. Quoting it humans DNA.

So it's not evolution it's healing regeneration of self pre existing sacrificed.

Yes says humanity that's my own teaching life with our holy mother holy father was sacrificed.

So are you all Jesus?

No says mutated ancient humans Jesus ended up as waters ground mass losses. Not as bad as Moses....how images of animal biology attacked and humans ended in clouds.

Updated new images. Life gone in waters microbial food chemicals minerals in water. Taken above to reform new cloud mass.

We aren't Jesus it's our brothers image taken then put back. As he caused it scientist theist king lord science rich man's human choice.

Oh so holy man was poor first not a king.

Yes but not said correctly. Natural man was living first. As rich poor isn't life it's civilisation status . Where science is practiced.

I taught natural man was hurt by rich man.

As dinosaurs aren't scientists. Humans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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!

This is just another conspiracy theory.

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​

Quote mining and playing on controversy over the details as if that means the science is collapsing.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that we are apes related to the other Great Apes and our lineage originated in Africa. This may be distasteful to certain Christian religious groups, but that does not make it a flawed conclusion.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Quote mining and playing on controversy over the details as if that means the science is collapsing.

quote mining, honestly?

That is your response to references from a United States museums take on this?

I find it laughable when evolutionists attempt to discredit statements from their own side..."stupid is as stupid does sir!"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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​

Well Adam, DNA does support the common ancestry of humans and other Great Apes like chimpanzees. Your mined quotes do not refute that.

I am not an evolutionist. That is pejorative offered by creationists to dismiss the acceptance of valid science as if the person believes in it like a religion or an uneducated opinion.

I am a scientist that accepts the theory of evolution as the best explanation available to explain the phenomena of evolution. You haven't got anything better and can only rely on tricks and debate tactics.

Do you even know what quote mining is? It is quoting out of context to distort what the person is saying and attempting to make it look like what is said supports your position.

I find it laughable that creationists still do this and so ham-handedly and obvious.

Another creationist trick is to exploit the normal controversies over details that are regularly found in science and declare that they mean the science is imploding and falling to pieces.

The arguments within science that are illustrated in the quotes you mined are over the details of human evolution and not that there isn't evolution or that there isn't common ancestry.

You need to go to primary sources and draw your own conclusions using knowledge, reason and evidence and stop repeating apologist sites that spread misinformation, propaganda, nonsense and outright lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

quote mining, honestly?

That is your response to references from a United States museums take on this?

I find it laughable when evolutionists attempt to discredit statements from their own side..."stupid is as stupid does sir!"

There was no "discredit", unless you want to admit that the Bible refutes itself.

The Bible tells us that:

" There is no "God": The Bible.

Do you think that you can refute that claim with the scant information given?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's name?
If you don't know it, does that mean you didn't have a great-great-great-great-great grandfather?
Do you not see how utterly absurd your reasoning is?

I think several of us have pointed out this obvious parallel that refutes the reasoning used to dismiss common ancestry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would you happen to know if Lucy's bones revealed any DNA? I know they surmised she was pre-human (meaning pre-homo sapien) based on the idea that she (I don't think the researchers know for sure whether it was a she or he, but anyway, if I recall correctly, they think it was a she) had a more erect posture, maybe didn't swing from trees, etc. So the question really is though -- do you know if her (?) bones revealed any DNA?

These are fossilized remains that are about 3.2 million years old. No one expects to find salvageable DNA and none has been. The conclusions about Lucy are based on examination, study and comparison of the fossil remains with other fossil hominids, other apes and modern humans. It isn't guess work or just wishful thinking on the parts of the researchers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It doesn't hurt to learn, does it? Furthermore, DNA is used as some kind of marker as if demonstrating humans and gorillas are just so similar by DNA comparison. Therefore I am wondering about "Lucy's" DNA but from what I discern from you and @Valjean , if I remember correctly, there IS no DNA in her bones because -- it deterioriated. You may correct me if I'm wrong thanks.

DNA is used to determine the common ancestry of children all the time. It's called paternity testing. It is used to find matches to DNA at crime scenes. You can find out who your ancestors were or establish the validity of known and presumed connections using DNA.

But DNA degrades with time. It has a half life of about 500 years. Under favorable conditions it might last for thousands of years, but not millions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, do not tell falsehoods. You are the one that improperly rejects the support that is given.

Go back and reread my prior post. Tell me if you have any questions about it at all.

Once you understand then I will gladly start to supply evidence.

Ok I wonder...I read something in a book by Dawkins which said, if I remember correctly, that it took billions of years for the first things to develop on the earth, such as bacteria. I wonder how he knew it took billions of years. I mean that would only go along with the theory of evolution, not actual evidence, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

These are fossilized remains that are about 3.2 million years old. No one expects to find salvageable DNA and none has been. The conclusions about Lucy are based on examination, study and comparison of the fossil remains with other fossil hominids, other apes and modern humans. It isn't guess work or just wishful thinking on the parts of the researchers.

Ok so no salvageable DNA. Before I go on, when does finding DNA stop, meaning when does the structure deteriorate to the point of not being capable of being analyzed for DNA?

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA is used to determine the common ancestry of children all the time. It's called paternity testing. It is used to find matches to DNA at crime scenes. You can find out who your ancestors were or establish the validity of known and presumed connections using DNA.

But DNA degrades with time. It has a half life of about 500 years. Under favorable conditions it might last for thousands of years, but not millions.

Ok I see you answered the question thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok I wonder...I read something in a book by Dawkins which said, if I remember correctly, that it took billions of years for the first things to develop on the earth, such as bacteria. I wonder how he knew it took billions of years. I mean that would only go along with the theory of evolution, not actual evidence, right?

It was probably less than a billon years. But one of the ways that we can tell of when life existed was the chemical products that they made. This is not absolute, but it is a good indicator. Later than that, perhaps as long as 3.7 billion years ago there are stromatolites. Mats that built up of colonies of single celled life.

Stromatolite - Wikipedia

The evolution of cyanobacteria, the first life to use photosynthesis is shown by Red Beds. Iron, Fe chemically, has two ionization states. Fe+2 is water soluble Fe+3 is not. After oxygen was began to be released sea water, which had quite a bit of Fe+2 at the time. reacted with it. If formed Fe+3 and the Iron oxide that formed settled out of solution. The ore in the world's largest iron mines was formed at this time.

Scientists do not guess. They are not allowed to guess. If they give a date for something you can usually find the reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so no salvageable DNA. Before I go on, when does finding DNA stop, meaning when does the structure deteriorate to the point of not being capable of being analyzed for DNA?

DNA has a half life of about only 521 years. That means that after 521 years half of it is gone. Decayed away to other chemicals. After 5,000 years about 10 half lives have passed, About one thousandth of it would be left. After about one million years close to two thousand half lives would have passed. You won't find any at that point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

DNA has a half life of about only 521 years. That means that after 521 years half of it is gone. Decayed away to other chemicals. After 5,000 years about 10 half lives have passed, About one thousandth of it would be left. After about one million years close to two thousand half lives would have passed. You won't find any at that point.

I said 500. You say 521. We disagree over a detail. Clearly all that we know and theorize about science has been destroyed.