Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

The author of the article also used the word supposition in this regard. So yes, I ask, on what basis did Darwin suppose or surmise that humans were evolutionarily closer to African apes? I am willing to go on, but yes, if you want to stop here more or less, I will say again, thank you for allowing me or attempting to have a conversation about this.

He based that conclusion mainly on the obvious similarities between other apes and men. If you look at the skeletons of other apes and compared human and ape skeletons to other species you would seen that humans and other apes are very very similar compared to others. By the way, even the creationist Linnaeus who first classified life and set up the classification system used for ages recognized that humans were apes.

Also, please note, Darwin said that if he was correct we would find more evidence supporting his theory over the years. Guess what? We have a ****load of evidence. There are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution, and the fossil evidence, though enough on its own to more than support the theory, is considered to be weaker than other evidence that is a bit more difficult for the amateur to understand. The fossil evidence is the obvious evidence, but the DNA makes it without a doubt.

 

[YoursTrue]

He based that conclusion mainly on the obvious similarities between other apes and men. If you look at the skeletons of other apes and compared human and ape skeletons to other species you would seen that humans and other apes are very very similar compared to others. By the way, even the creationist Linnaeus who first classified life and set up the classification system used for ages recognized that humans were apes.

Also, please note, Darwin said that if he was correct we would find more evidence supporting his theory over the years. Guess what? We have a ****load of evidence. There are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution, and the fossil evidence, though enough on its own to more than support the theory, is considered to be weaker than other evidence that is a bit more difficult for the amateur to understand. The fossil evidence is the obvious evidence, but the DNA makes it without a doubt.

Thank you for answering. So Darwin based his surmise or supposition that humans were evolutionarily related to the African apes. And, according to later research, it seems that 98-99% of the DNA of gorillas, chimps and bonobos are shared with humans. I will get back to reading more another time asap. I do interpret the author to say that this genetic difference is profound. Yet the obvious tenet with evolution must be brought out. It is considered that homo sapiens evolved from the great apes. Would you say that is the true tenet in evolutionary principles?
OK, thanks again for answering, perhaps we can go on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for answering. So Darwin based his surmise or supposition that humans were evolutionarily related to the African apes. And, according to later research, it seems that 98-99% of the DNA of gorillas, chimps and bonobos are shared with humans. I will get back to reading more another time asap. I do interpret the author to say that this genetic difference is profound. Yet the obvious tenet with evolution must be brought out. It is considered that homo sapiens evolved from the great apes. Would you say that is the true tenet in evolutionary principles?
OK, thanks again for answering, perhaps we can go on.

Yes, the difference is "profound". That means the difference in genes explains the difference between the species. In no way at all was that even an implication against the theory of evolution.

Do you remember the concept of evidence? Creationists cannot even come up with a testable concept for creation. Not because they cannot repeat the creation event, we cannot repeat the evolutionary history of the Earth. But that concept can be tested. There is reason that creationists are gun-shy when it comes to making testable hypotheses, theirs tend to be shot down. That is why there is no evidence for creation, but mountains for the theory of evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, I was reading an article presented to me by another poster, and here is what it said: (from Scientific American) -- "In 1871 Charles Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than to any other species alive. 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."
The author of the article in Scientific American said that Darwin surmised that "humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than any other species alive." https://www.scientificamerican.com/...humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/
It also states that the "recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition." I didn't make that statement, the article in Scientific American did.

Do you not understand the difference between saying "humans are evolutionary closer to African apes than any other species alive" and saying "Darwin said we evolved from gorillas"?

I'll give you some help with this. It's like the difference between saying "Me and my cousin are very similar genetically" and saying "My cousin is my dad".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thank you for answering. So Darwin based his surmise or supposition that humans were evolutionarily related to the African apes. And, according to later research, it seems that 98-99% of the DNA of gorillas, chimps and bonobos are shared with humans. I will get back to reading more another time asap. I do interpret the author to say that this genetic difference is profound. Yet the obvious tenet with evolution must be brought out. It is considered that homo sapiens evolved from the great apes. Would you say that is the true tenet in evolutionary principles?

No.

Once again, do you understand the difference between saying "X and Y share common ancestry" and "X evolved from Y"?

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

Once again, do you understand the difference between saying "X and Y share common ancestry" and "X evolved from Y"?

Yes. For X and Y to share common ancestry is rather different from X evolving from Y.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

Once again, do you understand the difference between saying "X and Y share common ancestry" and "X evolved from Y"?

The article said that 98-99% of the DNA of gorillas, chimps and bonobos are shared with humans. Would you say this does or does not mean that humans evolved from the gorilla-chimp-bonobo family. Or, to possibly put it another way, the fact that 98-99% of their DNA is shared with humans does NOT mean that humans evolved from them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, the difference is "profound". That means the difference in genes explains the difference between the species. In no way at all was that even an implication against the theory of evolution.

Do you remember the concept of evidence? Creationists cannot even come up with a testable concept for creation. Not because they cannot repeat the creation event, we cannot repeat the evolutionary history of the Earth. But that concept can be tested. There is reason that creationists are gun-shy when it comes to making testable hypotheses, theirs tend to be shot down. That is why there is no evidence for creation, but mountains for the theory of evolution.

Yes, I interpret the author to say that the difference of the 1-2% of unshared genes is profound between human capabilities and their ancestors by virtue of evolution. I do find that interesting. From what I am reading, it cannot be said categorically that humans really did evolve from bonobos or chimps, but that they are closest in genetic structure. Would you say that is a true statement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article said that 98-99% of the DNA of gorillas, chimps and bonobos are shared with humans. Would you say this does or does not mean that humans evolved from the gorilla-chimp-bonobo family. Or, to possibly put it another way, the fact that 98-99% of their DNA is shared with humans does NOT mean that humans evolved from them.

Not in the way that you put it since we are still in that same family. Once an ape always an ape.

And actually it pretty much does mean that we share a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I interpret the author to say that the difference of the 1-2% of unshared genes is profound between human capabilities and their ancestors by virtue of evolution. I do find that interesting. From what I am reading, it cannot be said categorically that humans really did evolve from bonobos or chimps, but that they are closest in genetic structure. Would you say that is a true statement?

Of course we did not evolve from them. We share a common ape ancestor. If you understood the nature of evidence you would understand that this is clear evidence that we are related. Now the question is did the lesson on evidence sink in.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course we did not evolve from them. We share a common ape ancestor. If you understood the nature of evidence you would understand that this is clear evidence that we are related. Now the question is did the lesson on evidence sink in.

I haven't read further since we're still discussing what it means that humans and gorillas, chimps and bonobos share 98-99% of DNA. Since I am just learning about this, would you say that the exact species or kind or animal (not sure of the right terminology), that humans evolved from, is not around any longer? Because there is no definitive evidence of precise evolution in that sense. (Is there?) To sum up so far, it is said that humans are related closely by genetic sharing to chimpanzees and bonobos. And, I reiterate, the 1-2% of unshared genes makes the difference between the thinking ability of chimps and humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't read further since we're still discussing what it means that humans and gorillas, chimps and bonobos share 98-99% of DNA. Since I am just learning about this, would you say that the exact species or kind or animal (not sure of the right terminology), that humans evolved from, is not around any longer? Because there is no definitive evidence of precise evolution in that sense. (Is there?) To sum up so far, it is said that humans are related closely by genetic sharing to chimpanzees and bonobos. And, I reiterate, the 1-2% of unshared genes makes the difference between the thinking ability of chimps and humans.

There were quite a few steps between our common ancestor with chimps. But one can see a clear progression from what all creationists call "apes" to us.

Let's start with what may be the common ancestor of chimps and humans:

Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia

Is it an ape? Every creationist that I know would say yes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course we did not evolve from them. We share a common ape ancestor. If you understood the nature of evidence you would understand that this is clear evidence that we are related. Now the question is did the lesson on evidence sink in.

As far as clear evidence, what I see from these discussions by scientists (even about worms and connection with human dna) is that on the genome scale scientists find similar genes in many types of organisms. Those are the facts I see so far. That's me. You and others may see the unseen (these organisms in the process of evolving), but I see so far that organisms are said to share genes, or DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as clear evidence, what I see from these discussions by scientists (even about worms and connection with human dna) is that on the genome scale scientists find similar genes in many types of organisms. Those are the facts I see so far. That's me. You and others may see the unseen (these organisms in the process of evolving), but I see so far that organisms are said to share genes, or DNA.

Then you did not learn the rather simple lesson about evidence. The definition was partially made because of people that act as you just have.

There are only two questions that you need to ask and need a "Yes"' answer for it to be scientific evidence. First is the theory of evolution testable? In case you do not know the theory of evolution is testable. I can give you examples if you do not understand. So we have the first requirement for an observation to be evidence. Second does the observation support the theory? And again, a very close match in DNA is exactly what the theory predicted. In fact before DNA could be sequenced that was a test of the theory of evolution. Large differences in DNA in supposedly related species would have refuted it. So now you know of both a test and the answer to the second question. It was "yes" in case you did not know.

People can be very dishonest when cherished beliefs are threatened. That is why scientists removed that as much as possible from the concept of evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

There were quite a few steps between our common ancestor with chimps. But one can see a clear progression from what all creationists call "apes" to us.

Let's start with what may be the common ancestor of chimps and humans:

Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia

Is it an ape? Every creationist that I know would say yes.

I don't know. It looks like an ape or a monkey of sorts, but who am I to say?
From the wikipedia article, "Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, though no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny." Complicate the picture?
But as far as apes go, hasn't it been said by those believing in evolution that humans are apes?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you did not learn the rather simple lesson about evidence. The definition was partially made because of people that act as you just have.

There are only two questions that you need to ask and need a "Yes"' answer for it to be scientific evidence. First is the theory of evolution testable? In case you do not know the theory of evolution is testable. I can give you examples if you do not understand. So we have the first requirement for an observation to be evidence. Second does the observation support the theory? And again, a very close match in DNA is exactly what the theory predicted. In fact before DNA could be sequenced that was a test of the theory of evolution. Large differences in DNA in supposedly related species would have refuted it. So now you know of both a test and the answer to the second question. It was "yes" in case you did not know.

People can be very dishonest when cherished beliefs are threatened. That is why scientists removed that as much as possible from the concept of evidence.

What we're seeing especially from the last artist's rendering of a being that looked like a chimp or some sort of monkey is that there is plenty of speculation about what they are and how they fit in the evolutionary ladder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know. It looks like an ape or a monkey of sorts, but who am I to say?
From the wikipedia article, "Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, though no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny." Complicate the picture?
But as far as apes go, hasn't it been said by those believing in evolution that humans are apes?

No, it does not complicate the picture. Of course the problem is that you have yet to realize that evolution has been shown to be as much of a fact as gravity. Oddly enough you do not dispute gravity yet you do dispute evolution. We know that if it was not an ancestor that it was very close.

But right now you are involved in another improper way to avoid reality. You are deflecting whenever possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What we're seeing especially from the last artist's rendering of a being that looked like a chimp or some sort of monkey is that there is plenty of speculation about what they are and how they fit in the evolutionary ladder.

You really should not say that since you have no clue. When you claim "speculation" you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself and as you have admitted you do not really know enough yet. That makes your claim unjustified and likely to be a falsehood.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you did not learn the rather simple lesson about evidence. The definition was partially made because of people that act as you just have.

There are only two questions that you need to ask and need a "Yes"' answer for it to be scientific evidence. First is the theory of evolution testable? In case you do not know the theory of evolution is testable. I can give you examples if you do not understand. So we have the first requirement for an observation to be evidence. Second does the observation support the theory? And again, a very close match in DNA is exactly what the theory predicted. In fact before DNA could be sequenced that was a test of the theory of evolution. Large differences in DNA in supposedly related species would have refuted it. So now you know of both a test and the answer to the second question. It was "yes" in case you did not know.

People can be very dishonest when cherished beliefs are threatened. That is why scientists removed that as much as possible from the concept of evidence.

First is the theory, right? Because humans are said to share 98-99% DNA with chimps and bonobos, does that mean that humans evolved from an ancestor of the ape family somewhere? What it affirms is that the DNA structure is close. Except for, of course, the 1-2% that separates humans from the African apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it does not complicate the picture. Of course the problem is that you have yet to realize that evolution has been shown to be as much of a fact as gravity. Oddly enough you do not dispute gravity yet you do dispute evolution. We know that if it was not an ancestor that it was very close.

But right now you are involved in another improper way to avoid reality. You are deflecting whenever possible.

Again, I didn't say it complicates the picture. The wikipedia article said that. I don't dispute that the sun is hot either.