When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[YoursTrue]

Concession accepted.

It is cute how you equate colloquialisms as representative of what ToE actually posits.
Here you go, fella:

Catarrhini

Hominidae
View attachment 55834

No straight lines, etc.
Maybe stop relying on pictures and actually learn something?

I can quote others. These pictures about evolution from bent over apelike ones looking like chimpanees that straightened up because, um, they were not working out to swing on trees have been in textbooks for a long time. Rather famous but not-so-true(?) depictions of the evolution to the latest? Humans, of course.
But let's be honest for a change -- I mean you be honest -- as in the colloquial 'let's be honest,' there's always that "Unknown Common Ancestor" said to have turned/changed/evolved(?) to various species, of apes, considering as you do, that humans are part of the ape descendancy or is it ascendancy? Either way -- it's that mysterious long ago ancestor. that [supposedly] disappeared and left behind afterwards chimps, gorillas, and distinct humans. Somehow that UCA got done away with, one might guess.

 

[YoursTrue]

Concession accepted.

It is cute how you equate colloquialisms as representative of what ToE actually posits.
Here you go, fella:

Catarrhini

Hominidae
View attachment 55834

No straight lines, etc.
Maybe stop relying on pictures and actually learn something?

I am learning something. Anyway, I thank you all for your very nice comments, I wish you all well. Thanks, I am learning.

 

[night912]

I mean it's cool, isn't it, that there is some "UCA." As far as what you're thinking that I'm thinking, you're wrong. I'm going by the drawings in textbooks that showed many times the descent (ascent?) from chimp-like animals to human types. Remember those? Here -- I'll give you an example:
Evolution doesn't proceed in a straight line – so why draw it that way? (theconversation.com)
Those images are all over. I didn't make them up, they're there. But that UCA, it must maybe have looked like a human? Or maybe a bonobo? (Who knows, do you?)

It amazes me that you actually believe that Adam and Eve looks exactly like this. They sure look cartoony.

Can you please give your reason why, after the fall, God decided to remove air bubbles that were filled with words whenever someone and/or something talks. Also, please explain why and/or Adam and Eve were able to speak and understand English?

 

[tas8831]

I can quote others. These pictures about evolution from bent over apelike ones looking like chimpanees that straightened up because, um, they were not working out to swing on trees have been in textbooks for a long time. Rather famous but not-so-true(?) depictions of the evolution to the latest? Humans, of course.
But let's be honest for a change -- I mean you be honest -- as in the colloquial 'let's be honest,' there's always that "Unknown Common Ancestor" said to have turned/changed/evolved(?) to various species, of apes, considering as you do, that humans are part of the ape descendancy or is it ascendancy? Either way -- it's that mysterious long ago ancestor. that [supposedly] disappeared and left behind afterwards chimps, gorillas, and distinct humans. Somehow that UCA got done away with, one might guess.

Concession accepted.

 

[tas8831]

I am learning something. Anyway, I thank you all for your very nice comments, I wish you all well. Thanks, I am learning.

First time for everything.

 

[tas8831]

You mean basic conjectural theory. Genetics is one thing. Gaps in evidence is another.

Seeing as how you do not seem to understand what constitutes evidence, I am hard pressed to believe you are in possession of any "gaps".

Speaking of gaps - can you trace your lineage back to Noah and his incestuous family? It should be easy, seeing as how the biblical timeline puts the flood at around 4500 years ago (right in the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom). About 250 generations. Piece of cake.

If you cannot do this - and keep in mind, 250 generations is NOTHING compared to the 250K or more going back to the MRCA of humans and chimps - then the gaps for YOUR position truly demolish it.

 

[tas8831]

So what's it with the gaps? What happened in between extinctions and newer organisms? Proof? Evidence? Knowledge verified by proof or evidence? Oh, and don't forget that you say there was no "first" human...just continual evolution from, um, some "Unknown Common Ancestor" to what you have today in the organism of 'humans.' Proof? Evidnce? (nope) No evidence either of bonobos, or chimps becoming, evolving, or morphing to anything else. That "UCA" is still being wondered about, isn't it? No ignorance there, of course.

Such a compendium of ignorance. Tossing things out in the hopes that 1 or 2 things will stick - all the while being 100% unable to actually understand any of it.

 

[tas8831]

I mean it's cool, isn't it, that there is some "UCA." As far as what you're thinking that I'm thinking, you're wrong. I'm going by the drawings in textbooks that showed many times the descent (ascent?) from chimp-like animals to human types. Remember those? Here -- I'll give you an example:
Evolution doesn't proceed in a straight line – so why draw it that way? (theconversation.com)
Those images are all over. I didn't make them up, they're there. But that UCA, it must maybe have looked like a human? Or maybe a bonobo? (Who knows, do you?)

Images like this are all over - Jesus depicted as a blue-eyed European. Clearly, Christianity is fake and Jesus never lived. Because people born in the middle east do not look like that.

 

[tas8831]

It's like taking medicine. (statistics) Works for some, not for others.

Doesn't work for anyone, expect those that have a desire to be fooled.

 

[cladking]

I can quote others. These pictures about evolution from bent over apelike ones looking like chimpanees that straightened up because, um, they were not working out to swing on trees have been in textbooks for a long time. Rather famous but not-so-true(?) depictions of the evolution to the latest? Humans, of course.
But let's be honest for a change -- I mean you be honest -- as in the colloquial 'let's be honest,' there's always that "Unknown Common Ancestor" said to have turned/changed/evolved(?) to various species, of apes, considering as you do, that humans are part of the ape descendancy or is it ascendancy? Either way -- it's that mysterious long ago ancestor. that [supposedly] disappeared and left behind afterwards chimps, gorillas, and distinct humans. Somehow that UCA got done away with, one might guess.

Your understanding isn't really so far off.

Believers hold that every species is gradually changing all the time and we can't even trace our own species because of missing links and uneven rates of change. Each of the creatures in the chart are "known" to be an ancestor that arose gradually from the one before. But they envision a "tree" with branches so some of the creatures had other branches than human ancestors as well.

I suppose these beliefs aren't really that far fetched but they lack evidence and they lack the missing links. Our species almost certainly never evolved gradually in any meaningful way. Our ancestors probably even came from more than one of these species but without introducing any genes from outside some common ancestor. Evidence suggests it's far more complex than the neat little model held by biologists even though that model is highly incomplete.

If we ever understand human evolution one could draw the "ascendancy model" from representative "species" but it will necessarily include every individual whom is a grandparent of anyone living today.

 

[tas8831]

Your understanding isn't really so far off.

Yes, it is.
This is the guy that thinks infants decide to grow various parts of their brain.
Don't listen to him - he is worse than a televangelist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. As I was looking at videos of chimpanzees recently, I thought -- how ever could they, would they, morph (my term) or evolve into human beings? Looking at them, it just ain't possible. Oh, but I forgot! They all came from an "unknown common ancestor," scientists say. So -- humans didn't really come from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, anyway! Just in case someone misunderstands, the posit is that all those called "apes," which evolutionists believe includes humans (I do not) descended (ascended?) from some as of yet, "Unknown Commoin Ancestor." At this point, all I can say looking at it closer, is -- "wow!" or hmmm... (In amazement at the incredulity of it all, but that's NOW. I didn't always have that viewpoint since as I explained, when I took biology in school, I believed, or at least figured they knew what they were talking about when they taught me evolution. But now I really do believe moreso what is written in the Bible. Certainly not a textbook on the details, but I find evolution very unbelievable at this point, that is, evolution of the Darwinian kind. Meaning that I believe viruses morph, but stay viruses, and other distinct forms can have changes but within their framework. Such as various types of cattle, and so forth.)



Thanks for explaining some of your viewpoint. I used to think that science meant taking a testtube and putting chemicals in it, or looking at things in a microscope. (Little did I know...) But now I understand it better when it appears that science is basically an idea of how something came about (?) or how or perhaps why something exists. I am glad I believe the Bible as the inspired word of God now, even thought there are parts I do not understand yet, I hope someday I will. Maybe I will meet Moses and he will say where he got some of his ideas. I won't go any further now about that. Again, thanks for elucidating.

We didn't evolve from chimps, but we are related to them. They are our cousins.
Like how you didn't evolve from your cousin but you both share a common ancestor in your grandparents.

I know you've been told this many times before. You really should go and take a course in evolution so you actually know what you're talking about in these discussions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sudden? as in nanosecond? Either way, who knows, since the Bible does not say just how long each type, species, kind, or whatever you want to call it, came about. Oh, 2 generations you say cladking says. Frankly, I wouldn't offer anything right now beyond what the Bible says, and also frankly, I'm not sure how cladking applied it. Meantime, I did read that it wouldn't take (that) long to produce many, many human beings from one couple.
Also, gotta say that those purported big clashes from meteors hitting the earth and wiping out whatever they did in the way of animal life, surely did produce big gaps, according to the theory, shall we say. Please do not ask me to explain, if you don't understand in relation to the theory what I just said about those gaps, please try to figure it out. What I just said. If you cannot, well, once again -- have a nice day. (OK, I'll give you a hint -- scientists themselves shrug their shoulders and have no real answers except for conjecture what happened during those periods, the gaps, maybe wipeouts -- so, perhaps that will help to figure what I mean there.)

Who cares what the Bible says about it? The people who wrote it didn't know anything close to what we now know about the world around us.

 

[tas8831]

It is a shame that @Native deigned not to condescend from on high to educate me on these matters....

So.... the sick ones should be vaccinated...?

What had they claimed, exactly?

By all means, let us in on your totally UNbiased "understanding" of these things. I am amazed at how you seem to have unparalleled expertise in nearly every subject...
Ah, so the totally UNbiased anti-vaxxers have it all figured out by virtue of their lack of relevant knowledge and their reliance upon "common sense" and Google.

There is that UNbiased, NONgroupthink expertise - "optimize" their immune system how, exactly?

Ah - the UNbiased groupthink of the ignorant.

By the way - If you are using "vira" as the plural of virus, then you should have used "a".

But - we know that you are the world's leading expert in cosmology and how everyone but you and those of your grouthink cult are wrong, but do tell us all about how you amassed such total knowledge of the immune system and the immune response.
Google? Social media?

"Natural thoughts" = dopey woo peddled by self-absorbed know-nothings.

 

[tas8831]

Yes. As I was looking at videos of chimpanzees recently, I thought -- how ever could they, would they, morph (my term) or evolve into human beings? Looking at them, it just ain't possible.

Ignoring your naïve misrepresentation of evolution as humans evolving 'from' chimps -
I eagerly await your scientific argument that "it just ain't possible" for humans to have evolved from ape-like ancestors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your understanding isn't really so far off.

Believers hold that every species is gradually changing all the time and we can't even trace our own species because of missing links and uneven rates of change. Each of the creatures in the chart are "known" to be an ancestor that arose gradually from the one before. But they envision a "tree" with branches so some of the creatures had other branches than human ancestors as well.

I suppose these beliefs aren't really that far fetched but they lack evidence and they lack the missing links. Our species almost certainly never evolved gradually in any meaningful way. Our ancestors probably even came from more than one of these species but without introducing any genes from outside some common ancestor. Evidence suggests it's far more complex than the neat little model held by biologists even though that model is highly incomplete.

If we ever understand human evolution one could draw the "ascendancy model" from representative "species" but it will necessarily include every individual whom is a grandparent of anyone living today.

Are you sure about that? Or is it just possible that you have unrealistic expectations?

 

[cladking]

Are you sure about that? Or is it just possible that you have unrealistic expectations?

I don't believe we'll ever understand the change in even one single species before homo sapiens. But we will come to have a pretty good understanding of how we (homo omnisciencis) arose. We won't understand every individual before or after the transition so it can never be "complete" but we will have an excellent grasp of "averages" and "type" that we call "species".

I seriously doubt our species will change again ever. If we can manage not to go extinct in the next century we will probably still be around mostly "unchanged" when the stars die out. We'll still think like we know everything but we'll act much more wisely. Without a major attitude adjustment our chances of surviving another century are poor at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe we'll ever understand the change in even one single species before homo sapiens. But we will come to have a pretty good understanding of how we (homo omnisciencis) arose. We won't understand every individual before or after the transition so it can never be "complete" but we will have an excellent grasp of "averages" and "type" that we call "species".

I seriously doubt our species will change again ever. If we can manage not to go extinct in the next century we will probably still be around mostly "unchanged" when the stars die out. We'll still think like we know everything but we'll act much more wisely. Without a major attitude adjustment our chances of surviving another century are poor at best.

It depends upon what you mean by "understand". It is already well understood how we evolved. But once again you may have unrealistic expectations.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your understanding isn't really so far off.

Believers hold that every species is gradually changing all the time and we can't even trace our own species because of missing links and uneven rates of change. Each of the creatures in the chart are "known" to be an ancestor that arose gradually from the one before. But they envision a "tree" with branches so some of the creatures had other branches than human ancestors as well.

I suppose these beliefs aren't really that far fetched but they lack evidence and they lack the missing links. Our species almost certainly never evolved gradually in any meaningful way. Our ancestors probably even came from more than one of these species but without introducing any genes from outside some common ancestor. Evidence suggests it's far more complex than the neat little model held by biologists even though that model is highly incomplete.

If we ever understand human evolution one could draw the "ascendancy model" from representative "species" but it will necessarily include every individual whom is a grandparent of anyone living today.

I haven't examined it all - such as the amount of dna in fishes that may be similar, let's say, to humans, but that's not the point because it does not mean evolution as far as I'm concerned. My question now is not so much if evolution is true (which I don't believe it is), but rather about the dating process of artifacts. That's a tough one to understand because of the atomic structure and carbon analysis.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't believe we'll ever understand the change in even one single species before homo sapiens. But we will come to have a pretty good understanding of how we (homo omnisciencis) arose. We won't understand every individual before or after the transition so it can never be "complete" but we will have an excellent grasp of "averages" and "type" that we call "species".

I seriously doubt our species will change again ever. If we can manage not to go extinct in the next century we will probably still be around mostly "unchanged" when the stars die out. We'll still think like we know everything but we'll act much more wisely. Without a major attitude adjustment our chances of surviving another century are poor at best.

I tend to agree with you. We may never understand it perfectly, because the Bible says we will never know everything. But that keeps us going, exploring, learning. And this lifetime is not enough to learn what we may want to learn. Since I believe in the Bible, it does say that the earth will be refreshed, restored, to a far better world than we have around us now. Many say the Lord's Prayer, but don't really know what it means. "Let your kingdom come...let your will take place as in heaven also on the earth." (Matthew 6)
Have a good day.