Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

Some of the intermediates from the common ancestor with chimps and modern humans are:

Australopithecus africanus
Homo habilus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaser

These are not only intermediate in form, but also intermediate in time. Not just similar in appearance, but also changing in form gradually from one to another through time.

Once again, we don't *expect* a single intermediate, but a sequence of such. And that is what we actually find.

What happened in the genes? Well, changes in control genes for growth of the skull and jaw, mostly. Some changes in the control genes for growth of legs. Some changes in the control genes for arms and hands. A merging of two chromosomes into one at some point. Loss of hair.

There really aren't that many *fundamental* differences between chimps and humans biologically. We started having larger societies, which made us more social (or, maybe the cause was the reverse). That lead to language use, which selected for structures in the neck to make speaking easier.

No, Neanderthals, by the latest information, are a subspecies of Homo sapiens and not an ancestor.

with all due respect, do you think by this time I should take your word and others for it without anything more than resemblances?

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe consider googling it yourself. I taught this for over 30 years, and I have no interest in wasting my time with those who simply don't do their homework nor have any serious interest in what the scientific community worldwide has known for well over a century. Do you really think that we're that ignorant and not familiar with the evidence; or that we are so morally corrupt that we want to spread lies?

If your church teaches you that the ToE contradicts the Bible and our Christian faith, then maybe do what I did when I left my old church, finding one that is invested in telling the truth about the ToE and the Bible itself.

Sorry to be so abrupt, but I gotta leave.

Lol I've googled it and found nothing but conjecture about dates and similarities.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.


What I'm interested in, is you grasping the point being presented to you via analogy.

As I have said, unless you want to take the point that social evolution amongst humans is like biological evolution, that's up to you. I don't buy it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Um no. You don't just have one poster's word for it. You have mountains of scientific evidence that demonstrates it, literally at your fingertips. You don't have to rely on one guy's word for it. You can have access to all the evidence you could ever want, if you were only curious enough to take the time to find it.

Chimps will never turn into humans. Creatures don't morph into other creatures nor do they give birth to creatures that are different from themselves. This has been explained to you. That simply is not how evolution works. I implore you to pay attention to the detailed explanations that the science-minded posters around here have been kind enough to provide.

That has been explained to me by simply saying it without real proof. Only surmises. I've been reading more and have not seen proof that fish turn into mammals yet, have you? Only surmises. That is not to say that I mean a codfish gives birth to a raccoon. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has been explained to me by simply saying it without real proof. Only surmises. I've been reading more and have not seen proof that fish turn into mammals yet, have you? Only surmises. That is not to say that I mean a codfish gives birth to a raccoon. Thank you for your patience.

You clearly still do not understand the scientific method nor evidence, nor even the meaning the word "surmise". People can get a bit frustrated with this sort of behavior.

 

[Polymath257]

with all due respect, do you think by this time I should take your word and others for it without anything more than resemblances?

How many accidental resemblances to this degree do you expect to see? Are there ways to tell the differences between accidental resemblances and actual genetic resemblances?

Given the *timing*, what other possibilities are there? remember, there were NO humans at the time these creatures existed. Also, these creatures stood upright, made tools, had large brain cases, etc. To pass it off as mere resemblance seems, to me, to be ignoring the evidence.

What other explanation for these creatures do you propose? And how *did* humans originate?

 

[Polymath257]

That has been explained to me by simply saying it without real proof. Only surmises. I've been reading more and have not seen proof that fish turn into mammals yet, have you? Only surmises. That is not to say that I mean a codfish gives birth to a raccoon. Thank you for your patience.

What precisely do you mean by that?

It seems flippant and rather a distortion to say a fish turns into a mammal when there are many species and hundreds of millions of years in between.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

with all due respect, do you think by this time I should take your word and others for it without anything more than resemblances?

The very post you are replying to, actually IS giving you more then "mere resemblances".
It's giving you a progression through time.

These aren't just random fossils that "look alike".
There's chronology and gradualism there - exactly as expected in evolutionary context.

What you see in that post is, off course, only the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of evidence...
But your response to it is remarkable....

Either you really don't see how it is offering more then "mere resemblances" or it's a serious case of dishonest evaluation of what people tell you.

 

[Polymath257]

The very post you are replying to, actually IS giving you more then "mere resemblances".
It's giving you a progression through time.

These aren't just random fossils that "look alike".
There's chronology and gradualism there - exactly as expected in evolutionary context.

What you see in that post is, off course, only the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of evidence...
But your response to it is remarkable....

Either you really don't see how it is offering more then "mere resemblances" or it's a serious case of dishonest evaluation of what people tell you.

Sometimes I think the only evidence that could convince some people is actually seeing each and every generation give birth to the next.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sometimes I think the only evidence that could convince some people is actually seeing each and every generation give birth to the next.

Even that alone might not be enough. They'll just observe very parent give rise to off spring of the same species and they'll be all like "see? always still the same kind!".

Now, if we would also freeze generation 1 so that we could compare that ancestor to the off spring of generation 100.000.... maybe then indeed it might sink in, what this "gradualims through accumulation of micro change" can actually do.

 

[Audie]

Sometimes I think the only evidence that could convince some people is actually seeing each and every generation give birth to the next.

I dont think that would work either.
Someone who talks about how he has not seen proof
that fish turn into mammals is putting all his effort into
avoiding, not getting it.
Likewise with the endless nonsense about perceived
flaws in the language / evolution analogy. AS IF
there were between the poles of the earth a perfect analogy
for anything.

 

[Audie]

How many accidental resemblances to this degree do you expect to see? Are there ways to tell the differences between accidental resemblances and actual genetic resemblances?

Given the *timing*, what other possibilities are there? remember, there were NO humans at the time these creatures existed. Also, these creatures stood upright, made tools, had large brain cases, etc. To pass it off as mere resemblance seems, to me, to be ignoring the evidence.

What other explanation for these creatures do you propose? And how *did* humans originate?

As you know, the early amphibians were awkward creatures
that could only succeed because of no competition on land.
Like "one eyed man is king in the land of the blind"

If a labyrinthodont were to try to make it in Africa, the crocodiles
would get him in the water, and any predator on land could make quick
work of it.

Our creationists of course are never biologists, have no concept of
what ecology or ecological niches are about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

with all due respect, do you think by this time I should take your word and others for it without anything more than resemblances?

At this point you should be well aware that there is much more than mere "resemblances" involved in determining lineages.

 

[metis]

Lol I've googled it and found nothing but conjecture about dates and similarities.

You can "LOL" all you want but the fact is that it is simply not "conjecture" when it comes to dna results especially. Apparently you are totally unaware of the fact that dna testing has been used to both convict some people and free some people. If it was just "conjecture", then we wouldn't be using it as such.

And the distinctions between Neanderthal and other Homo sapiens are now well known and well established since there are tell-tale markers that help us to identify the differences.

So, maybe go look in the mirror and then go "LOL" towards that which you see there if you're so inclined. And since when is it Christian in any way to laugh at people, YT? My church teaches that doing that is morally repugnant based on what Jesus taught-- doesn't yours?

 

[Audie]

At this point you should be well aware that there is much more than mere "resemblances" involved in determining lineages.

Let us see if he can identify any of it.

We should btw make up a list of top creo equivocations.

"assumption" is number one
"resemblance" is in there somewhere
"paradigm" is a goodie

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol I've googled it and found nothing but conjecture about dates and similarities.

You're looking in the wrong places then.
Like I said, search sites with .edu in the URL.
Also, you should search some scientific journals where, I assure you, the evidence you are looking for is readily available. There is a reason evolution is the only scientific theory in town. It's because all the available evidence from multiple fields of science, collected by multiple independent groups of scientists across the world over the last 160 years, points directly to it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That has been explained to me by simply saying it without real proof. Only surmises. I've been reading more and have not seen proof that fish turn into mammals yet, have you? Only surmises. That is not to say that I mean a codfish gives birth to a raccoon. Thank you for your patience.

It has been explained to you in great detail with a great deal of information/evidence. You've also been provided with mutiple links.

The problem is, you haven't grasped the basics, and don't appear to want to do so. Honestly, it sounds like you need to take a course on the subject. Googling creationist sites isn't going to be very helpful to anybody.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I have said, unless you want to take the point that social evolution amongst humans is like biological evolution, that's up to you. I don't buy it.

Why can you not address the analogy? It's a very good one that illustrates quite well how species have become diversified over time (like language has diversified over time). Is that why?

 

[Audie]

You're looking in the wrong places then.
Like I said, search sites with .edu in the URL.
Also, you should search some scientific journals where, I assure you, the evidence you are looking for is readily available. There is a reason evolution is the only scientific theory in town. It's because all the available evidence from multiple fields of science, collected by multiple independent groups of scientists across the world over the last 160 years, points directly to it.

"conjecture" is another for the equivlist

 

[YoursTrue]

Why can you not address the analogy? It's a very good one that illustrates quite well how species have become diversified over time (like language has diversified over time). Is that why?

No. In order for both of us to understand the other, isn't the evolution you are talking about genetic and biological? We have to have a starting point to understand the other. So are we discussing social or genetic evolution in the strict genetic-biological sense?