[_ Old Earth _] Evolution, a theory for apes.

[Barbarian]

Here's how to make mountains from molehills:

Donald Johanson said of Ramapithecus: "Like many other apes of the Miocene, Ramapithecus was represented only by gnathic (tooth and jaw) parts."

Based on some human-like features of the teeth, it was hypothesized that this ape might be a human ancestor. Subsequent finds indicated that it was more closely related to Sivapithecus, and therefore more likely an ancestory of Orangutans.

Thus all that we had were a few old teeth with which to classify an entire species with. At least these creatures must have brushed after every meal.

When a dinosaur specialist found a tooth that was oddly worn to look like that of a hominid, he thought he had found an early human ancestor. When a mammologist got a look at it, he quickly determined it was from a peccary. Just one tooth. Guess how.

Sometimes, even scientists overstep themselves. Nothing like the creationists stuff, like "Frog proteins are more like human proteins than ape proteins are like human proteins." That was a classic.

Or "no reptile was ever able to fly." Or "phototropism is an instinct, and therefore couldn't evolve." Foolishness like that.

 

[cupid dave]

Remember, they are talking about species in the genus Homo. Almost certainly, some of them led to dead ends and extinction, with only a few leading directly to us.

Hybridization, as seems to have happened with Neandertals and anatomically modern humans, is always a possibility, of course.

YEP...

This is another amazing piece of evidence that supports the genealogy of 22 names as species.

We find in Genesis a direct reference to hybyrdization between two different kinds of men.
The event takes place at the end of the genealogy, and implies and sexul intercourse between species very near the time of the great flood out of Africa, when our own species experienced a populationexplosion.

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (the line through Seth, i.e.; Methuselah, or Modern Homo erectus, whom God had taken from the days of Enoch to survive as the fittist),...
... saw the daughters of men, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, or, Naamahians, i.e.; a late stage Neanderthal, here called Lamech's daughter, or Homo antecessorian): that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose, (See Gen. 6:1, daughters of Lamech, or Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain).




http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id33.html

 

[Adam]

Lame.

You and I will decide what the definitive list is...?

.

Obviously not. We would simply be acknowledging what has been decided so far by the experts by taking note of the ones that have been added and removed to see that they don't net themselves out.

 

[Adam]

YEP...

This is another amazing piece of evidence that supports the genealogy of 22 names as species.

We find in Genesis a direct reference to hybyrdization between two different kinds of men.
The event takes place at the end of the genealogy, and implies and sexul intercourse between species very near the time of the great flood out of Africa, when our own species experienced a populationexplosion.

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (the line through Seth, i.e.; Methuselah, or Modern Homo erectus, whom God had taken from the days of Enoch to survive as the fittist),...
... saw the daughters of men, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, or, Naamahians, i.e.; a late stage Neanderthal, here called Lamech's daughter, or Homo antecessorian): that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose, (See Gen. 6:1, daughters of Lamech, or Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain).




http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id33.html

This is just dumb.

 

[cupid dave]

Obviously not. We would simply be acknowledging what has been decided so far by the experts by taking note of the ones that have been added and removed to see that they don't net themselves out.

Instead of all your subjective comments and opinionated rejection of the list found in the recnt book published in 2007, either link us to a better and more recent, scientifically published argument for a better list of more or less.

Or, as a self aappointed expert on this subject, just submit here you list of the now extinct humans.

 

[cupid dave]

Ridiculous...

Apes all have 24 chromosomes.

Humans have only 23 chromosome pairs.

And, the PROOF that man evolved from an ape can be see, objectively, by anyone ho can look at the #2 human chromosome and aacertain that it is actually two chromosomes, which fused together in some ancient Act-of-God.

The other chromosome are almost identical to the apes, but the two fused were that MUTATION postulated by Evolution:




"Chromosome 2 presents verystrong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo,"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relicof an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to giverise to human chromosome 2.

Because the fused chromosome isunique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after thehuman–chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, thatis, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu etal. 2001) (Fig.5).



References:

1.Fan Y, et al.Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.

 

[Adam]

Instead of all your subjective comments and opinionated rejection of the list found in the recnt book published in 2007, either link us to a better and more recent, scientifically published argument for a better list of more or less.

Or, as a self aappointed expert on this subject, just submit here you list of the now extinct humans.

Are you daft?


There doesn't need to be a published list in order to validate newly discovered species. The FOSSIL RECORD validates that there are more, not what is written on paper or in a book.

All one need to do is acknowledge the various species that have been discovered since, whether it be Au. sediba, the Red Deer Cave people, the Denisovans, the Hobbits (confirmed in 2009), Homo gautengensis, ect. to know that the list has been expanded on since 2006 when the book was compiled.


You don't have to be an expert to know how to add.

 

[Adam]

Ridiculous...

Apes all have 24 chromosomes.

Humans have only 23 chromosome pairs.
.

Humans ARE apes, so no, not all apes have 24 chromosomes.

 

[Asyncritus]

Or "no reptile was ever able to fly."

Guilty as charged. Senior moment.

Oh, BTW, you found out yet how the pterosaurs evolved and from what?

A lizard? I see.

Or "phototropism is an instinct, and therefore couldn't evolve." Foolishness like that.

Sorry. You're wrong. You have kindly explained HOW it works. I knew that from donkey's years ago, as every high school biology student probably does.

But WHY seems to be a word missing from your vocabulary.

You may know perfectly well how a car engine works - but that will never explain WHY it went from London to Portsmouth.

Same here. We know HOW phototropism works, but you don't know WHY it does, without the powering instinct driving the auxin production.

Have another go at accounting for the presence of the instinct. Evolutionarily, of course.

 

[Asyncritus]

Humans ARE apes, so no, not all apes have 24 chromosomes.

Heh heh heh!

You may be one pal, but I personally decline the honour you do me!

Banana, anyone?

Suppose your genome was 98% identical to an ape's genome. Would that make you 98% ape?

Or would it make an ape 98% human?

 

[lordkalvan]

Heh heh heh!

You may be one pal, but I personally decline the honour you do me!

Banana, anyone?

Suppose your genome was 98% identical to an ape's genome. Would that make you 98% ape?

Or would it make an ape 98% human?

Nope, it makes both of them 100% Hominidae.

 

[lordkalvan]

It turned out that A. T. Hopwood of the British Museum of Natural History, the man who named Proconsul in 1933, used teeth from the wrong fossil specimen when comparing Dryopithecus to Proconsul in classifying it. This went undetected until 1963, when it was found that Hopwood had been using part of a Ramapithecus fossil by mistake.


Science writer Kenneth F. Weaver wrote of this entire epoch in National Geographic: "A gulf of mystery separates Aegyptopithecus at 33 million years and Australopithecus at four million. Candidates for intermediate ancestors that have been proposed at one time or another include two from Kenya known as Proconsul and Kenyapithecus; two from India, Pakistan, China, and Kenya called Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus; and two from Europe called Rudapithecus and Dryopithecus. These apelike creatures lived at various times between 8 and 20 million years ago."
"Despite much debate and speculation, none of these primates has been finally accepted as a human ancestor . . . the long geologic epoch known as the Miocene (24 million to 5 million years ago) will remain a largely veiled chapter in hominid evolution."

As Weaver retired as science editor of National Geographic in 1985, my guess is this reference is at least 30 years old. Can you be more specific with your citation, please? Do you think research into and knowledge of the pathways of human evolution may have advanced somewhat in the last 30 or more years?

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]

Because the fused chromosome isunique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after thehuman–chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, thatis, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu etal. 2001) (Fig.5).

Sometimes I wonder if these people have a single brain between them.

Here's the scenario:

Ape/chimpanzee ---->fusion/split chromosome ---->humans and chimps

Now, what could have happened?

Was the split in a single animal? Or a whole troop of the things?

Then, humans being markedly different from apes/chimps, why didn't the apes/chimps kill the new species? (Remember, this is a new SPECIES, not a different neighbour, and apes/chimps don't readily tolerate a new species invading their troop).

Then to repeat the question, did this split occur in a single member, or was it the whole population of apes/chimps in the area?

It had to be very extensive, or the new population couldn't even start.

If it was a whole population, then it was a miracle of some sort - because the probability of the exact same mutation occurring in 1000 individuals is extremely small - more like zero, I would have thought.

Then what did the new specimen breed with, to pass down the new genotype?

If either he or she was alone, then that was the end of the new genotype. No further breeding and multiplication was possible.

So a new male AND a new female had to appear AT THE SAME TIME.

Unlikely if not impossible.

So here is the new pair, going forth to multiply and replenish the earth!

With speech and all the mighty human faculties there in the genome somewhere. Mathematics, music, physics, english, Zulu, car manufacture, moon-visiting, invention, skyscrapers - all that in this once-ape genome!

Banana anyone? Or is it nuts?

 

[lordkalvan]

Sometimes I wonder if these people have a single brain between them.

Here's the scenario:

Ape/chimpanzee ---->fusion/split chromosome ---->humans and chimps

Now, what could have happened?

Was the split in a single animal? Or a whole troop of the things?

Then, humans being markedly different from apes/chimps, why didn't the apes/chimps kill the new species? (Remember, this is a new SPECIES, not a different neighbour, and apes/chimps don't readily tolerate a new species invading their troop).

Then to repeat the question, did this split occur in a single member, or was it the whole population of apes/chimps in the area?

It had to be very extensive, or the new population couldn't even start.

If it was a whole population, then it was a miracle of some sort - because the probability of the exact same mutation occurring in 1000 individuals is extremely small - more like zero, I would have thought.

Then what did the new specimen breed with, to pass down the new genotype?

If either he or she was alone, then that was the end of the new genotype. No further breeding and multiplication was possible.

So a new male AND a new female had to appear AT THE SAME TIME.

Unlikely if not impossible.

So here is the new pair, going forth to multiply and replenish the earth!

With speech and all the mighty human faculties there in the genome somewhere. Mathematics, music, physics, english, Zulu, car manufacture, moon-visiting, invention, skyscrapers - all that in this once-ape genome!

Banana anyone? Or is it nuts?

Your caricature of evolutionary theory does your argument little credibility. Populations evolve, not individuals and no miracles required. You have told us elsewhere that 'a bit' of speciation does, indeed, take place. Can you tell us what constitutes 'a bit', what brings it about and what identifiable mechanisms exist to prevent 'a bit' becoming 'a lot'. Can you tell us whether this 'bit' of speciation was caused by the 'unlikely' occurrence of 'a new male AND a new female' appearing at the same time or was it a miraculous event changing the entirety of a particular population in one single instant?

Oh, and Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees per se, but rather from a common ancestral species that gave rise to both lineages, so your scenario postulating aggressive chimps killing the 'new' species off is something of a strawman. I hope you won't wheel out your rather doubtful de Waal quotation again to support the contrary view.

 

[Asyncritus]

LUCY (from The Darwin Papers)



Finally we have "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis, (no relation to Ricky Ricardopithecus) discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974.He wrote a book named after her and "Lucy" was the star of a few documentary specials. It would be in keeping with scholastic thoroughness to consider statements made on Lucy by some of the leading paleoanthropologists of this century.



Ernst Mayr said of Lucy: "That was the most idiotic thing, it just shows that Johanson doesn't know

what it's all about. . . Africanus and Afarensis quite likely were geographic races of the same species." (83)


Richard Leakey said that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that nearly all of it was "imagination made of plaster of Paris."(84) Still, from this meager amount of evidence, Leakey was confident enough to proclaim: "Lucy may be considered a late Ramapithecus." (85)


C. Loring Brace stated: "To consider Lucy a Ramapithecus is laughable." (86)


Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most eminent anatomists of the twentieth century, pioneered a scientific application of metric measurements to fossils (this should have been accepted practice all along with paleontologists) instead of the often spectacular (and embarrassing) subjective judgements pronounced by field workers with no scientific tools at hand.



It was Zuckerman's considered opinion that all classes of Australopithecines, from the Taung child all the way to Lucy, were nothing more than apes, virtually identical to the pigmy chimpanzee, known as the Bonobo.



So Lucy wasn't so unique after all.



Oxnard along with others have said the same thing, Australopithecines were simply apes that walked upright at times.


Predictably, Zuckerman's method of using exact scientific analysis in the fossil field hasn't won too many supporters among paleontologists. And why should it? Evolutionists are having more fun spinning their stories than a barrel of monkeys! Zuckerman wrote, with more than a touch of irony: "It is something of a record for an active team of research workers whose strength has seldom been below four, never to have produced an acceptable finding in 15 years of assiduous study."(87)


Dr. Greg Kirby, Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University said, "...I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (88)

 

[Asyncritus]

An interesting analogy (From The Darwin Papers)

Evolutionists have used the conclusion that evolution has occurred as the basis for the proof of their conclusion that evolution has occurred.


To use an example, let us say that we have reached the conclusion that person A had murdered person B. Perhaps there were no eyewitnesses, as in the case for evolution occurring.


Then what if we used the conclusion that person A had murdered person B as the basis of proof used to arrive at the conclusion!?


Well, this is precisely what evolutionists have done in their arguments, and they have the hubris to accuse creationists of using dishonest tactics. And then they have constructed all types of scenarios to justify their conclusions.



Again, to resort back to our analogy, we could say that since person B, Mr. Jones, was shot at from close range, then person A, Mr. Smith, must have been standing in the same room using a small caliber weapon. Since Mr. Jones was shot in the back, then Mr. Smith must have been standing behind Mr. Jones when it happened. Since the television was left on and there were two half filled cups left near two recliner chairs with two plates of unfinished food on them next to each chair, then we could conclude that Mr.Jones and Mr. Smith were having a meal together while watching television and had some sort of disagreement.


So! More evidence against Mr. Smith! We could go on in this manner accumulating all kinds of evidence for the death of Mr. Jones, all the while implicating Mr. Smith simply because we have concluded beforehand that it was he who did the murder, without looking for other suspects, and with no actual evidence that it was really Mr. Smith who was guilty of the crime!


Now we go to trial, and the prosecutor looks the jury in the eye and says, "Since Mr. Smith has murdered Mr. Jones, as we know because Mr. Jones was shot in the back so Mr. Smith must have been standing behind Mr. Jones when he committed the dastardly deed, you must certainly find him guilty!"


This is what evolutionists have done with their data. They have already concluded that evolution is an established fact, and then they have used that conclusion and worked it into the evidence for their proof.



However , let us go one step further, let us give the evolutionists the benefit of a doubt and bring in a forensic pathologist.



Now, if he has fresh body, then we can look for fingerprint evidence on nearby clothing and personal articles. We can determine the cause of death, whether it was strangulation, gunshot, or poison. We can determine the date and time of death. We can tell what the general health of Mr. Jones had been up until his recent demise. We may even determine what he had recently to eat.


But let us push the time of death back say, six months to a year, and put the body somewhere out in the wilderness. All that we have left are some bones for forensic evidence. We are not sure how the person died. We have no evidence to help us determine whether the person was strangled, poisoned, shot or drowned.

Then the case is a little bit more difficult to solve.
So we look for relatives or friends of the deceased to find out a little bit more about them. But what if the death occurred twenty or thirty years ago? Then many of these people might have passed on as well, and the evidence to determine the cause of death is much harder to find. We might never find out who the dead person was in the first place. If the death occurred 100 years ago or more the mystery might forever remain unsolved.


Now, let us push the cause of death back five million years! What do we know of the person? Who were his relatives? How did he die? How did he live? Was he ancestral to man? Who would know?



And yet from this fragmentary evidence evolutionists have come up with an entire fantasy story that men descended from apes, and that we have a common ancestory with chimpanzees. And they have sold that story to the public through their propaganda organs, through the media, educational institutions, and museums. Evolution has been inculcated into us from the very start as the one and only possibility of human origins, so the facts must always agree with the predetermined conclusion.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionists have used the conclusion that evolution has occurred as the basis for the proof of their conclusion that evolution has occurred.

If you honestly believe so, you're a lot dumber than I thought. Hint: Large font does not actually increase credibility. It just makes you look frantic.

To use an example, let us say that we have reached the conclusion that person A had murdered person B. Perhaps there were no eyewitnesses, as in the case for evolution occurring.

As you learned, students watch it in college classes every year.

Then what if we used the conclusion that person A had murdered person B as the basis of proof used to arrive at the conclusion!?

That would be YE creationism, wouldn't it? They start with the assumption that their new interpretation of the Bible is true and then use that as proof that they are right.

Well, this is precisely what evolutionists have done in their arguments, and they have the hubris to accuse creationists of using dishonest tactics.

Accusing others of the faulty thinking one engages in, does qualify as dishonest, yes.

As you know, the evidence for evolution is very great and from numerous independent sources, including genetics, molecular biology, fossil record, presence of numerous transitionals, the nested hierarchy of taxa, and so on.

You know this well, it's been shown to you numerous times. No point in denying it. Honest creationists admit it and try to work with reality.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and

Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist (and PhD geologist) Kurt Wise
http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf

Most YE creationists, instead, try this approach:

Now we go to trial, and the prosecutor looks the jury in the eye and says, "Since Mr. Smith has murdered Mr. Jones, as we know because Mr. Jones was shot in the back so Mr. Smith must have been standing behind Mr. Jones when he committed the dastardly deed, you must certainly find him guilty!"

And YE creationists wonder why scientists don't believe them.

 

[lordkalvan]

Just out of interest, Asyncritus, can you tell us how many of your cut'n'paste quotes are less than 30 years old? Heck, can you tell us if any of them are? It's difficult to know if you don't provide appropriate citations.

 

[cupid dave]

An interesting analogy (From The Darwin Papers)

Evolutionists have used the conclusion that evolution has occurred as the basis for the proof of their conclusion that evolution has occurred.


To use an example, let us say that we have reached the conclusion that person A had murdered person B. Perhaps there were no eyewitnesses, as in the case for evolution occurring.


Then what if we used the conclusion that person A had murdered person B as the basis of proof used to arrive at the conclusion!?


Well, this is precisely what evolutionists have done in their arguments, and they have the hubris to accuse creationists of using dishonest tactics. And then they have constructed all types of scenarios to justify their conclusions.



Again, to resort back to our analogy, we could say that since person B, Mr. Jones, was shot at from close range, then person A, Mr. Smith, must have been standing in the same room using a small caliber weapon. Since Mr. Jones was shot in the back, then Mr. Smith must have been standing behind Mr. Jones when it happened. Since the television was left on and there were two half filled cups left near two recliner chairs with two plates of unfinished food on them next to each chair, then we could conclude that Mr.Jones and Mr. Smith were having a meal together while watching television and had some sort of disagreement.


So! More evidence against Mr. Smith! We could go on in this manner accumulating all kinds of evidence for the death of Mr. Jones, all the while implicating Mr. Smith simply because we have concluded beforehand that it was he who did the murder, without looking for other suspects, and with no actual evidence that it was really Mr. Smith who was guilty of the crime!


Now we go to trial, and the prosecutor looks the jury in the eye and says, "Since Mr. Smith has murdered Mr. Jones, as we know because Mr. Jones was shot in the back so Mr. Smith must have been standing behind Mr. Jones when he committed the dastardly deed, you must certainly find him guilty!"


This is what evolutionists have done with their data. They have already concluded that evolution is an established fact, and then they have used that conclusion and worked it into the evidence for their proof.



However , let us go one step further, let us give the evolutionists the benefit of a doubt and bring in a forensic pathologist.



Now, if he has fresh body, then we can look for fingerprint evidence on nearby clothing and personal articles. We can determine the cause of death, whether it was strangulation, gunshot, or poison. We can determine the date and time of death. We can tell what the general health of Mr. Jones had been up until his recent demise. We may even determine what he had recently to eat.


But let us push the time of death back say, six months to a year, and put the body somewhere out in the wilderness. All that we have left are some bones for forensic evidence. We are not sure how the person died. We have no evidence to help us determine whether the person was strangled, poisoned, shot or drowned.

Then the case is a little bit more difficult to solve.
So we look for relatives or friends of the deceased to find out a little bit more about them. But what if the death occurred twenty or thirty years ago? Then many of these people might have passed on as well, and the evidence to determine the cause of death is much harder to find. We might never find out who the dead person was in the first place. If the death occurred 100 years ago or more the mystery might forever remain unsolved.


Now, let us push the cause of death back five million years! What do we know of the person? Who were his relatives? How did he die? How did he live? Was he ancestral to man? Who would know?



And yet from this fragmentary evidence evolutionists have come up with an entire fantasy story that men descended from apes, and that we have a common ancestory with chimpanzees. And they have sold that story to the public through their propaganda organs, through the media, educational institutions, and museums. Evolution has been inculcated into us from the very start as the one and only possibility of human origins, so the facts must always agree with the predetermined conclusion.

?

???


Isn't that always the case in all science????

The Hypothesis is an idea proposed which recommends a certain answer to explain a whole number of things.
That explanation seems reasonable as a possible answer for a connection between allthe several observations.

The next step is to propose that if the hypothesis is true, something else ought be shown to be true.
An experiment or a new discovery when shown to follow thyen allows us to begin theorizing that the hypothesis is correct.

 

[cupid dave]

?

???


Isn't that always the case in all science????

The Hypothesis is an idea proposed which recommends a certain answer to explain a whole number of things.
That explanation seems reasonable as a possible answer for a connection between allthe several observations.

The next step is to propose that if the hypothesis is true, something else ought be shown to be true.
An experiment or a new discovery when shown to follow thyen allows us to begin theorizing that the hypothesis is correct.

The three hoices avaiable today are;

1) The Bible is dead wrong in Genesis acording to science and hence not more than a myth or old legend.
Anything it says thereafter is merely the ancient comments by writers with almost no real knowledge about the reality of of our existence.


2) Genesis is belived to be a special book that comes from a God who knows everything about us but doesn't respect science as a way to understand the facts-of-Life.


3) Genesis and science support one another, and that will be shown to include the sciences of Psycholohy, Human Behavior, and Sociology.