Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

OK, later. Thanks. Although I will tell you that I wouldn't like to be on a jury because I may have a problem believing the production of what is called evidence or proof, even if surmised.

No surmising allowed. Creationists do love to make false claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- and it is getting late for me -- the only evidence I see is that there are DNA markers that are similar in organisms. Good night for now.

Once again the only question you are allowed to ask when it comes to evidence is "Does this observation support the concept" . Whether you like the concept or not is besides the point. Whether you believe the concept or not is besides the point. You can only ask if that observation supports the concept.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Then do you understand that Darwin never said humans evolved from Gorillas?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

That's not what you said. What you said is that Darwin claimed that humans evolved from Gorillas, not 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.

Yes. It indicates that we share common ancestry, not necessarily that we evolved FROM them, directly.

Where did Darwin ever claim we did?

 

[tas8831]

You are making a big issue over the use of a word. Yet the dictionary likens surmise to a guess. But in the meantime, the article you suggested, which I started to read until it became a big issue about the term surmise vs. guess stated this: "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." (Note the author uses the word 'supposition' there.)

I note the more current use of "confirms" and provides a clearer view of how we are connected."

But no, you go on with your lame 'argument via pedantery' as if it means anything.

 

[tas8831]

That's not what you said. What you said is that Darwin claimed that humans evolved from Gorillas, not the "gorilla-chimp-bonobo family".


Yes. It indicates that we share common ancestry, not necessarily that we evolved FROM them, directly.

Where did Darwin ever claim we did?

He didn't, of course, but this is how the creationist admits error - they, in essence, pretend to have known it all along and they just stop using their erroneous claims.

Pretty pathetic, but hey - you (creationists) have to go with the only 'gifts' they have.

 

[tas8831]

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.

So... is this really how you will pretend that you never wrote what you did?

"And so I ask: what EVIDENCE did Darwin have or use to make his claim that humans most likely... evolved from gorillas????????????????????"​

My goodness - you people cannot even bring yourselves to admit to trivial false claims! You've become a regular shmogie!

 

[Astrophile]

Where does God say that humans are apes?

2 Samuel 3:8.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again the only question you are allowed to ask when it comes to evidence is "Does this observation support the concept" . Whether you like the concept or not is besides the point. Whether you believe the concept or not is besides the point. You can only ask if that observation supports the concept.

You are restricting me from asking questions...LOL. The observation does not support the "concept," by the way, anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

So... is this really how you will pretend that you never wrote what you did?

"And so I ask: what EVIDENCE did Darwin have or use to make his claim that humans most likely... evolved from gorillas????????????????????"​

My goodness - you people cannot even bring yourselves to admit to trivial false claims! You've become a regular shmogie!

You're right. The author said Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African great apes than any other species. She did not say humans most likely evolved from gorillas, just that he surmised they were closer to African great apes than any other species alive.

 

[YoursTrue]

He didn't, of course, but this is how the creationist admits error - they, in essence, pretend to have known it all along and they just stop using their erroneous claims.

Pretty pathetic, but hey - you (creationists) have to go with the only 'gifts' they have.

I can learn what you say and believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not what you said. What you said is that Darwin claimed that humans evolved from Gorillas, not the "gorilla-chimp-bonobo family".


Yes. It indicates that we share common ancestry, not necessarily that we evolved FROM them, directly.

Where did Darwin ever claim we did?

Did humans evolve from a "close relative" in the gorilla-chimp-bonobo family? Come on, be honest.

 

[MikeDwight]

What would happen if a Preacher with a Bible said hooray for science? Not really, then oh the point of course ,was you just insulted his authority etc.
I figure everything's alright as long as the superhuman giantman aryan can force the weak hiding nationalities and Jews and the Darwinian "way of the Dodo" . *top hat* . I got another joke. What do you call races that essentially walk into a gas chamber? A Darwinian Award, that's a book now its awesome Darwinian Awards. Man tries to take shower, walks into gas chamber.

 

[YoursTrue]

I note the more current use of "confirms" and provides a clearer view of how we are connected."

But no, you go on with your lame 'argument via pedantery' as if it means anything.

Are we not connected with soil? So you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that humans/chimps/bonobos AND gorillas are "connected," is that right? Let's go over it again from the article. So humans are 98% connected with gorillas (is that right?), and 99% connected with chimps and bonobos. That is what I gleaned the information to be saying. Did I remember that correctly, in your opinion?

 

[Valjean]

Did humans evolve from a "close relative" in the gorilla-chimp-bonobo family? Come on, be honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

So where is the relationship or the common ancestor before the gibbon, orangutan, gorilla, human, and chimpanzee came forth? I mean what is the common ancestor? In the above chart, it looks like humans are placed between the gorilla and chimpanzee.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are restricting me from asking questions...LOL. The observation does not support the "concept," by the way, anyway.

Because until you can honestly deal with the concept of evidence there is no chance that you will let yourself learn.

And you are now either openly lying or showing a complete inability to understand the simplest of concepts. This does not reflect well on you.


Tell me, how does the DNA evidence not support the concept? This is your claim you must provide evidence for it. And since creationists do not understand the concept of scientific evidence I sincerely doubt if you can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did humans evolve from a "close relative" in the gorilla-chimp-bonobo family? Come on, be honest.

That is such a poorly asked question.

Tell me, why did you not include man in that family?

 

[YoursTrue]

No surmising allowed. Creationists do love to make false claims.

The surmising would be done by the presenters of what they might call evidence. Or suggestion, perhaps. No lawyers allowed in the case of no surmising.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The surmising would be done by the presenters of what they might call evidence. Or suggestion, perhaps. No lawyers allowed in the case of no surmising.

Nope, surmising is not allowed in the sciences. Once again you make a claim where you put the burden of proof upon yourself. If you cannot justify your claims then it looks as if you have broken the Ninth Commandment. I seriously do not see why creationists think that it is okay to break the Ninth Commandment when attacking evolution. They continually bear false witness against their neighbor. Do you think that there is an escape clause in the Bible for this activity?