The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. And that this organic ancestor came to life from NON-LIFE to LIFE by itself aka abiogenesis theory. Credible scientific evidence proves that organic life cannot result from non-life.

According to the atheists, there is no Almighty God Jehovah who created all life forms. So the question is this: If there is no Jehovah and therefore no Creator, how did evolution's supposed "common organic ancestor" come to life by itself?

The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each CREATED AS-IS, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves—up to a set point.

Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth. Fake science, meanwhile, relies on abiogenesis theory (organic life coming to life by itself) but fails to provide any credible explanation for this impossible feat.

QUESTION 1: How did evolution's common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

QUESTION 2: Humans are supposedly primates, and they supposedly came from the same common primate ancestor as did apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas. How is it that there is not so much as one single fossil showing the transitions among humans, apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas from this supposed common primate ancestor?

QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

That is a false statement.

If you really came from your mum, how come there is no evidence in the fossil record that you came from your mum?

With our own eyes we see people coming from people, and cats coming from cats, and bears coming from bears, and rats coming from rats, etc.

Please give a real-life, observable-in-the here-and-now example contrary to this. Thanks.

I have no idea why you'd ask for this.

This is why I avoid debating evolution. It's genuinely not possible that the OP has googled fossils and not found any for human evolution. There was a big story about a new fossil found just a few weeks ago. It's not possible that Lagtight hasn't had it explained to him why evolution doesn't expect cats to give birth to rats.

It is entirely possible, of course, that they've heard those answers and disagree with the explanations or examples given, but it's really not interesting to pretend that this is the kind of objection that they're still desperately awaiting an answer to.

For you creationists, it's a bit like me asking "If Jesus is God then how come he was human? Why has no Christian ever answered this?". I don't have to agree with the hypostatic union, but I'm sure it's painful as haemorrhoids if someone pretends it hasn't been answered a million times, or if someone pretends they've destroyed Christianity with this question.

“Transitory” fossils and the lack their of are a big issue for me questioning evolution.. it’s a valid question op.

GL in your journey..

Out before the trolls find this thread

Question 1: the answer isn’t known yet, but biologists are working on it. We may never know for sure how abiogenesis happened, but whether it was a natural process or a magical, supernatural one as you would posit, we know it happened. Unlike your “Goddidit” non-explanation, though, science will make an attempt at actual explanations of how abiogenesis occurred. There are hypotheses out there, just not enough evidence for a complete theory. Of course as it pertains to evolution it’s irrelevant. Evolution doesn’t deal with origins of life any more than general relativity deals with the origins of matter. Evolution is a theory regarding biodiversity, not origin of life. Even if “goddidit” is right regarding abiogenesis, the evidence for evolution stands. BTW besides some preserved 5000 year old myths, what is your evidence for “goddidit”?

Question 2: There are plenty of fossils out there illustrating the primate lineage, including the lineage leading to modern humans, but I suspect you know this already. Based on your beliefs, though, whether a particular specimen is fully human or fully ape should be quite clear — after all of according to your own beliefs there’s no relationship between apes and humans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Here are some that even creationists can’t seem to agree on; seems like these might be what you’re looking for.

Question 3: Again, plenty of fossil evidence exists for the ancestral relationships among various lines of organisms, but it would be very hard to trace fossil evidence back to the very first such. The first CA probably would have been a simple unicellular organism unlikely to be preserved in the fossil record. That might be an issue though if fossils were the only evidence. They are not; all of the basic biochemical processes of life are exactly the same in all organisms. The genetic code, protein synthesis and composition, glycolysis and many other process are identical across all organisms. There are also portions of the genome shared by all organisms. All of this is certainly consistent with a common ancestor of all life.

Creationists believe that there are no transitional fossils because there are no transitions. Certainly for any fossil hominid species then, said species would either be fully human or fully ape; there is no in between. If creationists themselves cannot agree on a classification of a hominid as either ape or human, then surely that would qualify as transitional, right? See the link in my post above.

In truth there are a wide variety of transitional fossils illustrating many lineages of organisms. What there is not are fossils that are “chimeras” — there are no pig-goats or horse-cows, and that’s as it should be. Evolution does not predict such transitions. It predicts slight variations that accumulate over time, not a chimpanzee giving birth to a human. The fossil record is exactly as you’d expect based on actual evolutionary theory, rather than the straw man version that creationists like to argue against.

Hard to disagree.

W0X0F:

Everyone reading this thread is waiting to see you prove it's a false statement. Merely declaring that the statement is false is an example of talking loud and saying nothing.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Bladesman87:

The fossil record is filled with nothing but gaps, meaning there is no physical evidence to support the claim that all creatures that ever walked this earth came from a single common biological ancestor aka macroevolution. Even the most ardent pro-evolutionists in academia are faced with the dilemma of the WIDE gaps in the fossils record.

But even before we get to the problem of the fossils record, pro-evolutionists have an even bigger problem: How did this supposed common biological ancestor come to life from non-life by itself aka abiogenesis so that evolution could proceed?

I will address paragraph 3 of your above comment at some other time, in a different thread.

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

stremba70:

Really? That's the best you can come up with? To quote you: "We may never know for sure how abiogenesis happened, but... we know it happened."

That's wishful thinking on your part in light of the fact abiogenesis theory was debunked more than 150 years ago by scientist Louis Pasteur. Pasteur was a contemporary of Charles Darwin. Darwin at the time was touting abiogenesis theory by claiming life came to life from non-life by itself.

Here is a partial quotation of what Darwin dreamed up in a February 1, 1871 letter to his friend, Joseph Dalton Hooker, wherein Darwin suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a "...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that: "...at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...D/DarwinC.html


Scientist Louis Pasteur, by means of laboratory experiments, showed Darwin's abiogenesis theory to be nothing more than a good joke.


Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

What gaps? Name 3. There are no wide gaps. There are fossils that illustrate human evolutionary lineage from an ape-like common ancestor that gave rise to humans and modern chimpanzees. Do we know every single species in that lineage? Probably not. Are there enough fossils to show a plausible connection? Certainly. There are plenty of fossils showing features typically associated with modern humans as well as other features associated with modern apes. This is so true that even creationists committed to classifying them as either “fully human” or “fully ape” cannot agree amongst themselves as to which they are. Obviously a species that cannot be easily and consistently classified as either fully human or ape is exactly the type of “gap” that you’re looking for, right? If you’re looking for something else in the fossil record, there’s no reason you’d expect to find it; evolution predicts ape/human transitional, not human/anything else ones.

Also, abiogenesis is a completely separate question from evolution. One thing creationists agree with modern science on is that abiogenesis occurred. There was once no life and now there is life, so living organisms arose from non living matter. That’s not in dispute. The question is how it occurred. Science, unlike religion, does not assume that we know all the answers right now. “We don’t know, but we are working on finding out” is a perfectly acceptable answer in science. That’s the current state as regards to abiogenesis. You creationists don’t know how it happened any more than scientists do. When you say “God did it”, that’s not an explanation. How did he do it? What chemical reactions created life where none existed previously?

Even if God did create life, and even if he did cause the creation of all the different species, the overwhelming evidence is that he did so via a gradual process involving ancestral populations becoming divided into isolated subgroups that diverge to the point where they are new species. These new species can further divide into subgroups and diverge over time. There’s no way to tell if God guided this divergence or if it happened naturally. The end result is the same either way. Since that’s the case, we don’t normally consider the divine possibility.

Sorry that science doesn’t have all the answers; nobody ever said it did. We know that there was a time when no life existed. We know that life now exists. Therefore life arose at some point in time. That’s true even if the Genesis account of creation is literally true.

Pasteur’s experiment proves nothing other than that under MODERN conditions life is unlikely to spontaneously arise. Nobody suggests otherwise. Heck, nobody even is suggesting that spontaneous abiogenesis was likely under earlier conditions (most notably and oxygen free atmosphere). It could have arisen via an unlikely event. Improbable events do occur - you’re posting on a poker site, so you certainly should know this. Pasteur’s experiment is akin to removing 2 aces from a deck of cards, giving them to player A, giving an Ace and a King to player B and then dealing a board. If you ruin that experiment once, you might conclude that AK can never beat pocket aces. Try running that experiment trillions of times, though, and you’ll likely come to a different conclusion.

In any case, it’s irrelevant for evolution. Evolution, like any other scientific theory, has a limited scope and certain entities it takes as givens. By analogy, we don’t question General Relativity because it can’t explain the origin of matter and energy; it takes matter and energy as givens. Likewise optics assumes the existence of light as given; we don’t question optics because it doesn’t tell us where light originated. Similarly, evolution takes life as a pre-existing given and describes and explains how life becomes more diverse over time. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that God created the first life directly, the overwhelming physical evidence indicates that the various species arose via a gradual process well described by the theory of evolution.

stremba70:

When are we to expect you to present this scientific EVIDENCE that, to quote you: "There are fossils that illustrate human evolutionary lineage from an ape-like common ancestor that gave rise to humans and modern chimpanzees."

Even a rabid pro-evolution paleontologist such as the now deceased Ernst Mayr admitted back in 2001 that the gaps in the fossils record are so wide that they are unable to get around it.

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)."

As far back as in 1982, Ernst Mayr admitted that every species of creatures on this planet are separated by "bridgeless gaps."


"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

In case you don't understand what is meant by "bridgeless," let the Webster's Dictionary simplify it for you, as noted below:

DEFINITION OF BRIDGELESS
a. 1. Having no bridge; not bridged.
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/bridgeless

Mayr went so far as to admit (bolded in pink) that no intermediate species are observed. He said the higher the categories (the more advanced the modern animal was in development) the more serious was the problem of finding intermediates (less developed versions of the modern creature). Simply put, no specimens were found showing how one creature gradually evolved into something else.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

The problem I have with these discussions is that you're not posing objections to the theory, you're just demanding explanations for how the theory even works.

If you want to critique it then understand it first and come back to us.

I thought of a better analogy. It's the equivalent of when an atheist comes in with "Did you know the Bible says that pi equals 3?". It's embarrassing to both sides.

Bladesman87:

I stated my objection to evolution theory in the title of this thread when I used the term "Myth" and linked that word to Darwin's Macroevolution theory.

I further stated my objection to evolution theory in paragraph 3 of my opening post when I stated: "The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each CREATED AS-IS, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves—up to a set point.

How much clearer do you want me to be as to my objection against evolution theory?


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

stremba70:

How convenient. Unfortunately for you and other pro-evolutionists, abiogenesis theory is a necessary part or evolution theory which says all creatures that ever walked on this planet evolved from a single common biological ancestor.

So then, how did this common biological ancestor come to life by itself in order for evolution to proceed? Louis Pasteur--and other scientists that came after him--proved that life cannot result from non-life by itself.

No common biological ancestor, no evolution. Richard Dawkins realized the dilemma of ruling out the Creator aka Jehovah, and so Dawkins dreamed up his version of abiogenesis theory and laid it out in his book, The Selfish Gene.

In his book, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins speculates that in the beginning, Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, lightening, and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart; then they formed into AMINO ACIDS, some of which reached the sea and combined into protein-like compounds and became a LIFELESS "ORGANIC SOUP." Then, according to Dawkins, a "particularly remarkable molecule was formed BY ACCIDENT"--a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself and cluster together--BY ACCIDENT. These molecules wrapped a protective protein membrane around themselves--BY ACCIDENT--and generated the first living cell. While admitting that this was EXCEEDINGLY IMPROBABLE, Dawkins insists that it must have happened.

Thereby Dawkins defied logic by insisting that accidents--which, according to the dictionary definition, only produce UNDESIRABLE or UNFORTUNATE RESULTS--must have somehow done what he himself admits is "exceedingly improbable." (Source: The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, p. 16).


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

I don't think saying Genesis disagrees is much of an objection to evolution. It's just saying you disagree. You'd actually have to give a reason to prefer one theory over the other.

For example, if you say the Bible is true and I say "I believe it's false" that's not really posing a problem for the Bible, is it? It's just me saying "I disagree".

And when you raise abiogenesis you need to understand why that's not a problem for evolution. If you don't then that's just telling us you haven't got the basic understanding to critique a scientific theory like evolution. You're asking questions that have been answered thousands of times before so look it up and then come back with a critique we can talk about.

Bladesman87:

I am not relying entirely on the Genesis creation account. I stated in paragraph 4 of my opening post that credible science disputes Darwin's Macroevolution and that credible science SUPPORTS the Genesis creation account.

"Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth."

I then quoted a PRO-evolution paleontologist, Ernst Mayr, who was forced to admit that the fossils record DOES NOT support Darwin's Macroevolution theory because the fossils show wide gaps that cannot be bridged and that, in fact, the fossils do not show ANY evidence of gradual transition among creatures (showing how they slowly evolved from what they started off as into something entirely different).

You will see Ernst Mayr's admissions above, and he made those admissions decades apart. Below once again is what Mayr said in 1982 about the wide gaps in the fossils record.

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Bladesman87:

Keep repeating yourself about abiogenesis if you want to. Without the existence of evolution's SUPPOSED common biological ancestor from which everything else evolved, there could be no supposed evolution, period. That's why you are trying to get around that problem by arguing there is no connection between the two. Richard Dawkins saw the connection, that's why he came up with that nonsense in his book, The Selfish Gene.

In 1953, scientist Stanley Miller also attempted to create life from non-life as a means of explaining how evolution's supposed common ancestor came to life by itself. Miller's experiment was a miserable failure. I will go into that at another time.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

How the first organism(s) came to be is largely uninteresting to the concept of evolution, which is a scientific explanation as to how life develops, not how it originates.

That doesn't mean the question is uninteresting or that biologist / geneticists don't find conjecture on the issue intriguing, merely that the tread title in context is misguided.

This is of course an absurd statement, all observation tell us that all living organisms consist of building blocks from the world around them. We even know that when such building blocks are not available (aka nutrition, water and proper atmosphere), life is not sustainable.

I'm not bound to anything Richard Dawkins said.

I'll grant that abiogenesis is a challenge to atheism. The atheist may well have to contend that abiogenesis is plausible in order for life to begin without God's input. It's not a challenge to evolution.

Someone could say that all life evolved from a common ancestor but it required a God to create the first living thing from which all others came. Evolution could be true and yet require a God to start the process.

If you want to challenge abiogenesis then by all means do it, you just aren't challenging evolution when you do so. I don't think the discussion can go further unless you understand this distinction.

Is not even a discussion at all tbh, OP is showing what cult level indoctrination can do to a person. Maybe that sounds harsh, but this thread is really no different to one made by a Flat Earther.

Given the demographics of the USA, there are far more Christians for OP to argue with over Evolutionary Theory than atheists.

Perhaps OP can provide some positive evidence for their own position instead?