Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone: did you understand the above sentence where I said that I believe gorillas existed before humans existed? Would you imagine I meant by that they evolved or emerged (OK, I won't say "popped up") at the same time as humans?

If you deny evolution I really do not care what your explanation is because I know that you will not be able to find any evidence for it. I would be truly shocked if that ever happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that you are not that literal. I am talking about the evidence that makes it abundantly clear that we share a common ancestor with other apes.

And no, I do not believe in God but I used to. When I believed in God I did not believe in a lying God and since the evidence against the various myths of Genesis was so clear I could not interpret it literally at all. Take the Noah's Ark story for example. To make it at all possible, one that does not rely on a dishonest God, the flood must be turned into a local flood that would not have accomplished its biblical goals.

Thank you for your answer. You asked about a literal interpretation of the Bible, so I answered you insofar as I know about each day. They are not literal 24-hour days, that is clear to me. We are talking about evolution (yes, mindless) vs. creation from a superior, intelligent force, are we not? If someone tells me that evolution is not mindless, I do not accept that. Logically it doesn't make sense. And if evolution is not true in whatever sense a person interprets it, then what is? First growing up, I believed in God but questioned why we are here. I did and I didn't believe in God. Then I did not believe in God because of the miserable things happening in the world and life. But later, as I looked into the Bible, I had to ask myself why the accounts in the Bible are not true. And I could not come up with a good answer. I can't say I'm able to contest every objection you may have. But I would like to mention about the origin of human life. For example, when a person goes on vacation to a beautiful place, he might call it a paradise. Why is that? I believe it is set in the HUMAN (not ape) heart that we, as humans, yearn for a paradise, just as we might yearn to live with our loved ones, friends and family perhaps, forever. I truly doubt that animals yearn to live beyond their death days. They have developed no doctors, no scientists, to help them live longer, healthier lives. I don't account for that stopgap because of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, I will use popular science links since neither of us will be able to read most of the articles in the peer reviewed literature:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science | AAAS

Genetics

Endogenous Retroviruses are amazing evidence for our relatedness. They are the result of an infection that got into a gamete, but did not fully launch. This is an extremely rare event, but since it is usually a neutral mutation they very often eventually become part of the genome. Think of one occurrence every thousand generations or so. It is extremely strong evidence for common ancestry:

Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys

You have a lot of reading to do. Ask questions. People will respond.

It's late, my thinking ability is reduced now due to ingrained physical resources waning due to tiredness, I will look at it first thing when I get back to this thread. I will go over the links with the hope that we can discuss them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your answer. You asked about a literal interpretation of the Bible, so I answered you insofar as I know about each day. They are not literal 24-hour days, that is clear to me. We are talking about evolution (yes, mindless) vs. creation from a superior, intelligent force, are we not? If someone tells me that evolution is not mindless, I do not accept that. Logically it doesn't make sense. And if evolution is not true in whatever sense a person interprets it, then what is? First growing up, I believed in God but questioned why we are here. I did and I didn't believe in God. Then I did not believe in God because of the miserable things happening in the world and life. But later, as I looked into the Bible, I had to ask myself why the accounts in the Bible are not true. And I could not come up with a good answer. I can't say I'm able to contest every objection you may have. But I would like to mention about the origin of human life. For example, when a person goes on vacation to a beautiful place, he might call it a paradise. Why is that? I believe it is set in the HUMAN (not ape) heart that we, as humans, yearn for a paradise, just as we might yearn to live with our loved ones, friends and family perhaps, forever. I truly doubt that animals yearn to live beyond their death days. They have developed no doctors, no scientists, to help them live longer, healthier lives. I don't account for that stopgap because of evolution.

Sigh, you are arguing from emotion and personal prejudice and not rationally. You can't come up with a valid objection. Forget the "heart" nonsense, try to find real evidence.

 

[tas8831]

I haven't said yet how "great we are."
Can non-human apes working together build a spaceship or a torpedo? (No, I have not done that.)
Can non-human apes sculpt a masterpiece? (No, I have not.)

Can all humans do any of that? NO.

Most of the humans I have encountered would have a hard time writing their name on the ground with a stick.

 

[tas8831]

I did not say gorillas did not come as animals before humans. I believe they were existing before humans were existing.

And that is the problem - can;t interpret phylogenetic trees.

So I hope I made that clear to you about what I believe. Can you please show the actual evidence scientists use to claim that gorillas were in the line of evolutionary changes that eventually became humans.

No, because that is not what is claimed.

Do some reading.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, I will use popular science links since neither of us will be able to read most of the articles in the peer reviewed literature:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science | AAAS

Genetics

Endogenous Retroviruses are amazing evidence for our relatedness. They are the result of an infection that got into a gamete, but did not fully launch. This is an extremely rare event, but since it is usually a neutral mutation they very often eventually become part of the genome. Think of one occurrence every thousand generations or so. It is extremely strong evidence for common ancestry:

Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys

You have a lot of reading to do. Ask questions. People will respond.

Right at the beginning, the first article you link to, I have questions. Now it's true that the author speaks in statements claiming scientific data, but I'd have to have a clearer understanding of these things before I accept or believe them. So, since you offered, let's start at the very beginning (of the article).
From the Scientific American article, it starts:
"In 1871 Charles Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than to any other species alive."
So that means that Darwin guessed (surmised) humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than any other species alive. Maybe his guess didn't work out. Let's see.
The article continues,
"The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent."
OK, so, according to scientists who study these things, chimps and bonobos share approximately 99 percent of the same DNA with humans. Gorillas share 98 percent with human DNA. So allow me to interpret. 1% (approximately) of human DNA is different than those of chimps and bonobos.
Article continues: (I added the bold.)
"Yet that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function. But they can conduct whole-genome analyses—with intriguing results. For example, comparing the 33 percent of our genome that codes for proteins with our relatives' genomes reveals that although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways."
Again, I am not a scientist, but as I read over the sentences there, I see it says "most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function." As I finish the author's statement there in that paragraph I see she concludes that the analysis of the sum total of the genetic differences is small, but the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting EACH of humans' chromosomes in numerous ways.
So, this 1% genetic difference pervades the human genome. Apparently allowing the human, which supposedly evolved from a chimp and/or bonobo, to walk upright on two feet, and plan missions to Mars. Yes, amazing and astounding is the jump in capability from chimps and bonobos to humans. No explanation yet as to how this 1% genetic difference happened. And, of course, the common perhaps recognition that chimps still stay chimps and bonobos stay bonobos. No building cities, no conquering their enemies insofar as ruining their habitats.
Well, since I"m going over this bit by bit, I'll await a response if you'd care to give one. Otherwise, I may go on and read further in the article.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can all humans do any of that? NO.

Most of the humans I have encountered would have a hard time writing their name on the ground with a stick.

Some humans have been born with low I.Q.s and can be hard to teach. Some can't even learn to dress themselves. Others may not have had a good chance at learning well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right at the beginning, the first article you link to, I have questions. Now it's true that the author speaks in statements claiming scientific data, but I'd have to have a clearer understanding of these things before I accept or believe them. So, since you offered, let's start at the very beginning (of the article).
From the Scientific American article, it starts:
"In 1871 Charles Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than to any other species alive."
So that means that Darwin guessed (surmised) humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than any other species alive. Maybe his guess didn't work out. Let's see.
The article continues,
"The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent."
OK, so, according to scientists who study these things, chimps and bonobos share approximately 99 percent of the same DNA with humans. Gorillas share 98 percent with human DNA. So allow me to interpret. 1% (approximately) of human DNA is different than those of chimps and bonobos.
Article continues: (I added the bold.)
"Yet that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function. But they can conduct whole-genome analyses—with intriguing results. For example, comparing the 33 percent of our genome that codes for proteins with our relatives' genomes reveals that although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways."
Again, I am not a scientist, but as I read over the sentences there, I see it says "most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function." As I finish the author's statement there in that paragraph I see she concludes that the analysis of the sum total of the genetic differences is small, but the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting EACH of humans' chromosomes in numerous ways.
So, this 1% genetic difference pervades the human genome. Apparently allowing the human, which supposedly evolved from a chimp and/or bonobo, to walk upright on two feet, and plan missions to Mars. Yes, amazing and astounding is the jump in capability from chimps and bonobos to humans. No explanation yet as to how this 1% genetic difference happened. And, of course, the common perhaps recognition that chimps still stay chimps and bonobos stay bonobos. No building cities, no conquering their enemies insofar as ruining their habitats.
Well, since I"m going over this bit by bit, I'll await a response if you'd care to give one. Otherwise, I may go on and read further in the article.

You made several errors. We need to go over them one at a time. First surmising is not guessing. Let's not make false claims about others. It is a conclusion drawn upon insufficient evidence.

Definition of SURMISE

Darwin recognized two facts, that humans appeared to be related to apes, and that he did not have sufficient evidence to state it decisively at that time.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that is the problem - can;t interpret phylogenetic trees.

No, because that is not what is claimed.

Do some reading.

Oh, well according to the article in Scientific American, gorillas share only 98% of DNA with humans, while bonobos and chimpanzees share 99%. And that 1% evidently makes a big difference in functioning, cognitively and physically. Also, humans are not generally inclined to swing from trees and stay that way. And most (note the word 'most') humans wear clothes when applicable. Bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas do not have that desire to construct clothing for themselves, to cover up, at least not insofar as I know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sigh, you are arguing from emotion and personal prejudice and not rationally. You can't come up with a valid objection. Forget the "heart" nonsense, try to find real evidence.

Yes, the heart is involved, it is also evidence. Rationally speaking, of course, gorillas, chimps and bonobos apparently do not have that desire to figure if there is a God. That's not in their heart or mind. Or the 98-99% shared DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, well according to the article in Scientific American, gorillas share only 98% of DNA with humans, while bonobos and chimpanzees share 99%. And that 1% evidently makes a big difference in functioning, cognitively and physically. Also, humans are not generally inclined to swing from trees and stay that way. And most (note the word 'most') humans wear clothes when applicable. Bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas do not have that desire to construct clothing for themselves, to cover up, at least not insofar as I know.

"only 98%"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the heart is involved, it is also evidence. Rationally speaking, of course, gorillas, chimps and bonobos apparently do not have that desire to figure if there is a God. That's not in their heart or mind. Or the 98-99% shared DNA.

No, that is not evidence. To have evidence in a scientific discussion you first need a testable hypothesis. What testable hypothesis involved "the heart"?

 

[YoursTrue]

You made several errors. We need to go over them one at a time. First surmising is not guessing. Let's not make false claims about others. It is a conclusion drawn upon insufficient evidence.

Definition of SURMISE

Darwin recognized two facts, that humans appeared to be related to apes, and that he did not have sufficient evidence to state it decisively at that time.

Surmise is an elegant word meaning guess. Cambridge English Dictionary defines surmise as: to decide that something is true without having complete information or proof:
Another definition of surmise from that respected dictionary says: to guess something, without having much or any proof:
So you decide. I doubt Darwin had DNA evidence proving the DNA differences. Did he? If not, he went on appearances, didn't he? I mean he probably figured birds didn't resemble humans or gorillas.

 

[YoursTrue]

"only 98%"

Oh. The article said, "gorillas trailing at 98 percent." Hmm, yes, they're trailing at 98%, while chimps and bonobos share 99%. Still--I guess -- their genetic structure does not allow them to: build rocket ships, they also do not have a need or desire in their DNA to wear clothes. Also, until the present time, yes, these animals do not have a press(ure) within themselves to develop writing skills transmitting their languages of whatever sounds they make in order to denote their history or warn others about bad times in certain areas.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is not evidence. To have evidence in a scientific discussion you first need a testable hypothesis. What testable hypothesis involved "the heart"?

The hypothesis is that humans read, write, and discuss their origins, history, and possible negotiations. Also, they talk about God, life and death, and their closest "relatives" do not. Is it testable? Well, we know that humans read, write, and discuss their origins. But chimpanzees, and gorillas? The comparison is that there is no evidence that chimpanzees and gorillas do that, despite their proximity of DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surmise is an elegant word meaning guess. Cambridge English Dictionary defines surmise as: to decide that something is true without having complete information or proof:
Another definition of surmise from that respected dictionary says: to guess something, without having much or any proof:
So you decide. I doubt Darwin had DNA evidence proving the DNA differences. Did he? If not, he went on appearances, didn't he? I mean he probably figured birds didn't resemble humans or gorillas.

Not even your source says that it is a guess. If you are going to make obviously false claims we cannot go on. I thought that you were going to try to learn. So far your questions shows that you are trying not to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The hypothesis is that humans read, write, and discuss their origins, history, and possible negotiations. Also, they talk about God, life and death, and their closest "relatives" do not. Is it testable? Well, we know that humans read, write, and discuss their origins. But chimpanzees, and gorillas? The comparison is that there is no evidence that chimpanzees and gorillas do that, despite their proximity of DNA.

That is no a testable hypothesis.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh. The article said, "gorillas trailing at 98 percent." Hmm, yes, they're trailing at 98%, while chimps and bonobos share 99%. Still--I guess -- their genetic structure does not allow them to: build rocket ships, they also do not have a need or desire in their DNA to wear clothes. Also, until the present time, yes, these animals do not have a press(ure) within themselves to develop writing skills transmitting their languages of whatever sounds they make in order to denote their history or warn others about bad times in certain areas.

You really need to quit grasping at straws. This is not an honest way to approach this article. I need to repeat that you are trying to avoid learning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not even your source says that it is a guess. If you are going to make obviously false claims we cannot go on. I thought that you were going to try to learn. So far your questions shows that you are trying not to learn.

My "source" that says "guess" as a definition for surmise is the Cambridge Dictionary. So yes, I agree with you, if you're going to make a big deal about surmise or guess then I guess-suppose-figure we better stop. But thank you for whatever discussion we have had, and I also guess-recognize-realize you really don't want to discuss it.
Merriam Webster Dictionary for "surmise" -

Definition of surmise
(Entry 1 of 2)

: a thought or idea based on scanty evidence : CONJECTURE

SCANTY EVIDENCE. CONJECTURE. Conjecture: form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.