Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Eli G]

...You are not fooling anyone with those pics.

Sharing a common ancestor, doesn’t mean that humans were descendants of the chimpanzees....

I am not the one fooling others, it is YOU.

You don't have any idea about what kind of animal was, let's say, the great-grandfather of any of all those 4 apes, but you want to force people to believe that this great-grandfather (a different ape) existed and was the same for all of them included the humans on top.

That is a lie; you can not assume as true what you are just especulating ... and you can't force people to accept it.

 

[cladking]

Please excuse --yet-- I guess it takes me time to understand everything others may be saying -- so do you or do you not believe in the theory of evolution?

Absolutely and positively not in any way shape or form.

I believe in evidence and that the job of every individual is to assemble this evidence in meaningful patterns that make accurate predictions and create fewer anomalies. Darwin assembled the evidence incorrectly because common sense doesn't apply to how and why species change. Well, more accurately common sense applies to everything but it is ALWAYS dependent on proper beliefs and models. All of our beliefs are wrong.

Yes, species change as is apparent from the "fossil record" but just because gradual change and "survival of the fittest" are common sense doesn't mean they explain the evidence. The way homo omninisciencis thinks is not in any way natural. Naturally all individuals model reality itself in the brain but we must learn abstract language so we can learn anything at all so we must model what we believe. These models ideally are tied to experiment but in the real world they are tied more closely to extrapolations that might best be called "paradigms". Every bit of the Theory of Evolution tied to experiment is probably mostly spot on but little of the theory is tied to experiment. It is instead tied to interpolations and extrapolations of what we believe.

Species adapt suddenly.
Species undergo mutation suddenly.
Speciation occurs suddenly at bottlenecks caused by behavior of individuals. The behavior is a result of learning, experience, consciousness, and genetics.

Evolution big E or little e simply does not exist. It is interpretation of evidence led astray by faulty premises.


Frankly, you seem to understand better than most.

 

[gnostic]

I am not the one fooling others, it is YOU.

You don't have any idea about what kind of animal was, let's say, the great-grandfather of any of all those 4 apes, but you want to force people to believe that this great-grandfather (a different ape) existed and was the same for all of them included the humans on top.

That is a lie; you can not assume as true what you are just especulating ... and you can't force people to accept it.

once thing for certain, human cannot and do not come from soil, Genesis’ “dust of the ground”. Genesis 2:7, is nothing more than fairytale fantasy. Only primitive believe in such nonsensical fantasy.

Most of soil, are made of inorganic silicon-based minerals, like feldspar, which is one of many types of silicate. There are no sili of any type present in human tissues or cells.

humans have always been born, via sexual reproduction.

 

[Eli G]

once thing for certain, human cannot and do not come from soil...

That is not what has been discussed here.

One thing FOR CERTAIN: humans cannot and do not come from apes.

 

[Eli G]

Not only have evolutionists never found a supposed common great-grandparent for all the different types of great apes known, but they have also never found one for any animal family that exists today.

Add up all the lies, and you have THE BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL TIMES.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not the one fooling others, it is YOU.

You don't have any idea about what kind of animal was, let's say, the great-grandfather of any of all those 4 apes, but you want to force people to believe that this great-grandfather (a different ape) existed and was the same for all of them included the humans on top.

That is a lie; you can not assume as true what you are just especulating ... and you can't force people to accept it.

That is not true. We have more than enough evidence to confirm this. But you do not even understand the concept of evidence and I am betting that you are too afraid to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not what has been discussed here.

One thing FOR CERTAIN: humans cannot and do not come from apes.

Of course we did. You keep forgetting that you are an ape. You are unfortunately unwilling to learn how we know this. If a person denies reality and refuses to learn then that person cannot legitimately demand evidence. One has shown that he or she is not being honest by refusing to learn what is necessary to discuss this topic with any authority at all.

I will not give you any evidence until you learn what is and what is not evidence and learn a very simple version of the scientific method. I will gladly help you learn those concepts. And if you can be honest enough to learn then you can demand evidence.

 

[Eli G]

You and your mother are apes, while me and my family are a different family.
Thanks for your understanding.

 

[cladking]

The above is illogical in and of itself. Maybe rethink and make the logical corrections.

Of course, it's illogical. Nothing logical can be expressed in a parseable abstract language.

But thinking can be logical and I believe this is.

What we see as common sense is wholly dependent on what we already believe. You can't show language or any statement to be logical. I simply propose that's because it is not.

No. What he put forth were "hypotheses". not assumptions.

All hypotheses are based on assumptions and models. Even interpretation of experiment depends on assumptions which is why paradigms exist.

BTW, we know a hellofa lot more about evolutionary science than he ever did because we have well over a century of research to go on.

Of course we do!!! But this doesn't mean Darwin was right nor does it mean that we are right today.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not true. We have more than enough evidence to confirm this. But you do not even understand the concept of evidence and I am betting that you are too afraid to learn.

I was just thinking of evidence. Someone suggested that gorillas might have knowledge of God. Evidence of that assertion,please? While you're at it, what evidence is there that Mary, the mother of Jesus, answers prayers. Now that evidence is brought up...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just thinking of evidence. Someone suggested that gorillas might have knowledge of God. Evidence of that assertion,please? While you're at it, what evidence is there that Mary, the mother of Jesus, answers prayers. Now that evidence is brought up...

Sorry, agree to learn what is and what is not evidence and after you do then I will answer silly questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and your mother are apes, while me and my family are a different family.
Thanks for your understanding.

You and your mother are apes too. I would not insult you by claiming that you were not an ape.

 

[YoursTrue]

Absolutely and positively not in any way shape or form.

I believe in evidence and that the job of every individual is to assemble this evidence in meaningful patterns that make accurate predictions and create fewer anomalies. Darwin assembled the evidence incorrectly because common sense doesn't apply to how and why species change. Well, more accurately common sense applies to everything but it is ALWAYS dependent on proper beliefs and models. All of our beliefs are wrong.

Yes, species change as is apparent from the "fossil record" but just because gradual change and "survival of the fittest" are common sense doesn't mean they explain the evidence. The way homo omninisciencis thinks is not in any way natural. Naturally all individuals model reality itself in the brain but we must learn abstract language so we can learn anything at all so we must model what we believe. These models ideally are tied to experiment but in the real world they are tied more closely to extrapolations that might best be called "paradigms". Every bit of the Theory of Evolution tied to experiment is probably mostly spot on but little of the theory is tied to experiment. It is instead tied to interpolations and extrapolations of what we believe.

Species adapt suddenly.
Species undergo mutation suddenly.
Speciation occurs suddenly at bottlenecks caused by behavior of individuals. The behavior is a result of learning, experience, consciousness, and genetics.

Evolution big E or little e simply does not exist. It is interpretation of evidence led astray by faulty premises.


Frankly, you seem to understand better than most.

So far in today's world of observation, there is no evidence of gorillas evolving to something other than gorillas if you get my point. Species is not the biblical term but anyway...

 

[metis]

Of course, it's illogical. Nothing logical can be expressed in a parseable abstract language.

But thinking can be logical and I believe this is.

What we see as common sense is wholly dependent on what we already believe. You can't show language or any statement to be logical. I simply propose that's because it is not.



All hypotheses are based on assumptions and models. Even interpretation of experiment depends on assumptions which is why paradigms exist.


Of course we do!!! But this doesn't mean Darwin was right nor does it mean that we are right today.

I'm wasting my time as you seriously don't know what you're talking about on this topic. I know how hard reality can be as I came from a fundamentalist church and had to leave it even though I had wanted to go into the ministry. I eventually got a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it or 30 years.

BTW, probably the biggest worldwide "assumption" is that there is a god-- or are there more than one god? How could you possibly know?

Since you constantly ask for evidence, which is quite "kosher" btw, please provide evidence for "God". And then can you admit that obviously no one can, including you?

 

[cladking]

BTW, probably the biggest worldwide "assumption" is that there is a god-- or are there more than one god? How could you possibly know?

The biggest and worst supported and destructive assumption is that there is no God. Science is being bought and sold on this basis for use as a weapon against the less fit; middle class Americans.

 

[metis]

The biggest and worst supported and destructive assumption is that there is no God. Science is being bought and sold on this basis for use as a weapon against the less fit; middle class Americans.

You did not and cannot answer the question, and your rejection of science is 100% unfounded.

So, provide us clear evidence there is one god and that it is the god you believe in. I guarantee that you can't, so will you just do another song & dance for us or be honest?

BTW, I am not an atheist.

 

[cladking]

You did not and cannot answer the question, and your rejection of science is 100% unfounded.

I do not reject science. I reject the product being bought and sold that is labeled "Science". I also reject any "science" not founded in experiment. There are not an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. There may not even be one pyramid built with one ramp. I reject as "theory" any conjecture founded on a belief in "survival of the fittest" and that gradual change is the only way to interpret the "fossil record". I reject the pervasive belief in science and I reject the common notion that science is based on genius. I reject the common belief that science is determined by consensus and that individuals are irrelevant. I reject the way science is taught in this country.

All these things are wrong and they are all destructive to the individual and the commonweal. Even if Darwin is right it would still be wrong to teach or believe Evolution as "settled science" there is now and never will be such a thing as "settled science" and such a belief can be used as an epitaph for the human species. We came, we believed, we all died.

 

[cladking]

So, provide us clear evidence there is one god and that it is the god you believe in. I guarantee that you can't, so will you just do another song & dance for us or be honest?

Of course I can't. No more than you can prove there was no Creator.

Belief is destructive. It's not as bad when beliefs are constructed by reason and experiment but when it is constructed of guesses, assumptions, and old wives tales they are far more likely to destroy than create. Certainty in science springs from confusion where ironically religion sprang from ancient science.

Modern science is a powerful tool but where used improperly it can destroy. You are using it improperly. Life is individual and so, too, is science.

I've often taken anthropology to task but I do respect many anthropologists. Anthropologists rely on Egyptology for too many base lines.

BTW, I am not an atheist.

I'm not either. However my thinking on the subject has evolved remarkably since I was very little. Some of my positions lacked labels.

Well, I shouldn't say "evolved" because like everything they changed suddenly many many times.

 

[firedragon]

Those pictures are all current or extant species from the “great apes” or family Hominidae.

Humans didn’t evolve from any of those.

Although humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestry, based on DNA results, it doesn’t mean that the chimpanzees are our ancestors, hence we didn’t evolve from the chimpanzees. The shared ancestors are of much earlier extinct ancestor species.

The genus Homo and genus Pan diverge at some points about 6 or 7 million years ago, based on the DNA tests of humans and chimpanzees. That’s the DNA evidence, not the fossil evidence.

Palaeontologists have not yet found the fossils of the last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, yet, but the closest “possible“ evidence they have so far, is the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, an earlier species of the Hominidae that flourished during the Miocene epoch, about 7 million years ago.

You are not fooling anyone with those pics.

Sharing a common ancestor, doesn’t mean that humans were descendants of the chimpanzees.

The immediate ancestors of the Homo sapiens were another Homo species - the Homo heidelbergensis.

So the Homo heidelbergensis were the last common ancestor of the Homo sapiens, the Neanderthals and the Denisovans.

The Homo heidelbergensis most likely evolved from Homo erectus, and so on.

Are you sure that this ancestor sharing is 100% established objective truth? Just out of curiosity/.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biggest and worst supported and destructive assumption is that there is no God. Science is being bought and sold on this basis for use as a weapon against the less fit; middle class Americans.

Who ever assumes that "there is no God"?

You should not conflate the concept that there is a natural explanation for observed events to stating that is an assumption that there is no God.