Thanks McStone and hope you are well.
Lucy, stop deliberately getting bogged down in semantics.
You made a logical statement that was false. No semantics involved.
I'm not looking forward to replying to your entire post McStone. For ease of debate please consider making your points a bit more brief. I'm not trying to prescribe how you should debate but just maybe have a bit of consideration for the people that want to respond.
From now on if you post such a long post I will only respond to one, two or three points.
For the record its not what evolution even postulates. Humans didnt suddenly spring forth from a chimp-like animal, and no one would dream of saying as much.
You didn't believe that your theory required that we evolved from a rock either, but now you've come around.
Human evolution, like that of all species, exists on a gradient. The only reason it looks so "distinct" is because of our reading frame. Because we are the only Homo species still alive, the differences with other species are more apparent.
and reading frame
. Now you are talking my language McStone.
Human ancestors progressively acquired a number of characters; not least, an expansion of cranial capacity and bipedialism (linked, among other things to a changing environment, and observed, at the same time, in other ape species).
Please provide a description of the mechanism for which these acquisitions arose.
These can be traced though the fossil record, oh, and you guess it, are also confirmed by genetic evidence.
When you say "traced" you mean imagined. And when you say "confirmed by genetic evidence" I have no idea what you are talking about.
Despite best YEC argument, it doesnt change the fact that other human species existed; they are other human species, genetically isolated from us, despite sharing our ranges for hundreds of thousands of years. Puzzling that, wouldnt you say? And no, before you say it, they didnt suffer from some continental-wide bout of rickets or some head condition.
As far as I know there is only one species of humans. If you have evidence of other human species please provide it.
Your understanding of Abiogenesis is also cynical. Life formed from organic compounds, which form spontaneously.
This, I assume, can be done in the lab.
Life, or the precusor of life,
Then which is it?
may well have come from some rock-catalysed reaction, (most probably clay) because Lucy, these things - called elements - are the same in rocks as they are in life forms, they are just, at the end of the day, in a different order. Life forms extract energy and elements from the environment around them. Sometimes indirectly through other organisms, sometimes directly, like the fascinating chemoautotrophs of hydrothermal vents,
No, they are not just in a different order, they are in a specific order.
who extract the energy from elemental sulphur - pumped, quite literally - from inside the earth. Carbon, once absorbed in the ocean, finds its way into rock, right at the bottom of the ocean, and, over past periods of time, may be slowly uplifted through metamorphism and volcanic activity, may enter the atmosphere, may be absorbed by plants, be eaten, respired and excreted and may enter the ocean again. You can actually trace the process. Plants are made from carbon atoms, which originally come from the ground. We all are.
You can imagine the process, you can't replicate it.
Does abiogenesis sound so silly now?
It sounds sillier now than it ever did.
If you are so different from this process, why do you breath? Why do you eat? Why didnt god think it appropriate to remove that most degrading process - that great leveller - going to the toliet? Like it or not, you are part of this world, and its rules.
I quite like going to the toilet. I breath because I have life within me. I eat because I get hungry.
As for your comments on god, believing in god is a personal belief. If the above stops you believing in god, so be it. If not, so be it.
Thanks. And if your belief in evolution fulfils your hearts yearning for the truth. Then so be it. Else keep searching.
"I wish everyone were like little children, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
I also find your opinions of "fertile minds" a bit ironic. Your alternative is so basic that, essentially, a 5 year old child with your worldview - despite having no life experience, or substantive education - would know the same about the world and its origin as an adult with your worldview.
Beyond a certain layer, we dont find certain classes. It doesnt matter if these classes are still alive today, or that the classes are now extinct. The fossil record is graduated, beyond all reasonable assertions of
"well they lived in different areas"
Well they are both good books (by english authors, i might add), but i suspect you want to dig a little deeper then that.
Quadrupeds generally don't live in the ocean, they live on land. Fish don't generally live on land, they live in the sea. Which is lower, the land or the sea? Which would you expect to be in the lower sediments.
Here we go!
So let me spell it out as simply as i can:
At the very bottom of the fossil record (c. 1.7bya), we find simple eukaryotic organisms; algae mats and such. We dont find anything more complicated below them.
When we look at eukaryotic genomes, the simplest - not in terms of nucleotide number - the simplest in terms of genes and their products, are simple one celled organisms, just like the constituents of algae mats
Have a guess what these are;
A couple of miles down the beach from where I live. They are supposed to be 3.5 billion years old. Blue-green algae is the base layer of the fossil record. They still exist today in exactly the same form. Why didn't they evolve?; everything else did.
They are in the bottom layer because they live in the ocean and die and drop to the bottom of the ocean, before the flood.
We go a bit higher in the fossil record (c. 630mya), we start to find simple protostome animals - animals distinguished by their first embryonic hole becoming their mouth. We dont find protstomes any lower.
When we look at modern animal genomes, the simplest, in terms of body plan coding etc - are those of protostomes.
You say simple animals, can you please explain what you mean by a simple animal.
If we go even higher (c. 540mya), we start to see deutrostomes - the ancestors of all vertebrates.
Fossil deutrostomes are distinguished by the first embryonic hole becoming their ass. We dont find deutrostomes any lower.
If we look at modern deutrostome genomes, we see deutrostomes have the genes necessary to develop a core complicated infolding in the embryo.
Here your talking about sea slugs. Still at the bottom of the ocean, maybe just not so deep.
Higher still (c. 530mya), we see fossils progressively start displaying notochords, nerve cords, pharyngeal slits and craniums. We dont find these characters any lower.
If we look at modern animals with these characters, we find that genomes get more complicated with each of these additions. The new characters are added to the genome, but not in replace of the previous ones.
Still down in the depths of the earth.
The non-limbed brethren is an imaginative association. Still in the water.
and so on. Thats a worldwide pattern. Thats the best way i can explain it. Its not easy to read. But thats the general trend.
You're joking, that's it?
Then McStone answer this question for me please. How does inanimate matter develop a language to which the universe complies?
Note. I don' know where the syntax error is. I've checked all the marks. Please let me know if u find a mistake.