Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

If two different things share a common origin and one is relatively recent, what do you think the odds are that the other is going to be of a similar age?

You do not get what 'I don't know ' means? Now I am confused.

Bingo! I don't know. Maybe the information is available. I have not looked. I also do not know why it matters in the context of the discussion. Older, younger or the same, the evidence says evolved and still evolving.

Sorry, I apologize, some of that I didn't edit well enough. So going on today --
OK, as an *evolving* outcome of this conversation, shall we use the term 'evolving', I looked up lions and whence did they *come from." And here's the first several words from Wikipedia: (I am only going over the so-called lineage.) Of course lions still do give birth to lions, humans to humans and chimpanzees to chimpanzees, BUT you say none of their evolution stopped, so, if I understand you correctly in your mind, they all just keep evolving, is that right?
But going on,
"The lion (Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae..." So I can learn more about the theory of evolution, let's perhaps start there. "Panthera leo" is a species in the family Felidae. OK, Panthera leo is a species in the family Felidae. That's what it says.
Then it goes on later on in the article (Lion - Wikipedia) to say, and I put in bold certain phrases right now at this juncture,
"The lion's closest relatives are the other species of the genus Panthera, namely tiger, snow leopard, jaguar, and leopard. Results of phylogenetic studies published in 2006 and 2009 indicate that the jaguar and the lion belong to one sister group that diverged about 2.06 million years ago.[9][10] Results of later studies indicate that the leopard and the lion belong to the same sister group, which diverged 3.1–1.95 million years ago"
Other species of the genus Panthera? The first sentence says that the lion (or Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae. So according to that, the lion is a species in the family Felidae. Then it says the lion's closest relatives are other species of the genus Panthera. Rather than going into every word right now, I looked up Felidae, and this is the first explanation of that word (according to wikipedia): "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats," So lions are a species in the family called Felidae, which is in the order Carnivora. I figure carnivora means mammals that are flesh eating (carnivores). All classification of the scientific sort, but no proof of -- evolution. All conjecture with the presumption that each "family" evolved by so-called natural selection.
If I didn't believe that God created the heavens and earth according to His interests, I may go along with the theory and like going into "classifications" and so forth, shrug my shoulders and consider it a great intellectual exercise, but instead what I have found is that the ToE is a concept that for the most part, I no longer go along with. Because -- no one was there when it all "happened." And more importantly, I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Basically, here is where I leave it, I may answer in the future, I most likely will, but thanks everyone for their discussion of -- *evolution.*
**Note - maybe carnivores are not only mammals--since some bugs and worms (which I don't think are mammals) eat flesh.

 

[Bear Wild]

I hesitate to mention it, since I only caught a brief mention on the radio and have not looked further at this time. But I caught the end of an announcement regarding penguins and language that might be of interest to you. I'll do a search later to see what I can come up with. I thought of some of your posts when I heard it.

Thanks I really appreciate it. If you find out a source let me know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, as an *evolving* outcome of this conversation, shall we use the term 'evolving', I looked up lions and whence did they *come from." And here's the first several words from Wikipedia: (I am only going over the so-called lineage.)
"The lion (Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae..." So I can learn more about the theory of evolution, let's perhaps start there. "Panthera leo" is a species in the family Felidae. OK, Panthera leo is a species in the family Felidae. That's what it says.
Then it goes on later on in the article (Lion - Wikipedia) to say, and I put in bold certain phrases right now at this juncture,
"The lion's closest relatives are the other species of the genus Panthera, namely tiger, snow leopard, jaguar, and leopard. Results of phylogenetic studies published in 2006 and 2009 indicate that the jaguar and the lion belong to one sister group that diverged about 2.06 million years ago.[9][10] Results of later studies indicate that the leopard and the lion belong to the same sister group, which diverged 3.1–1.95 million years ago"
Other species of the genus Panthera? The first sentence says that the lion (or Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae. So according to that, the lion is a species in the family Felidae. Then it says the lion's closest relatives are other species of the genus Panthera. Rather than going into every word right now, I looked up Felidae, and this is the first explanation of that word (according to wikipedia): "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats," So lions are a species in the family called Felidae, which is in the order Carnivora. I figure carnivora means mammals that are flesh eating (carnivores). All classification of the scientific sort, but no proof of -- evolution. All conjecture with the presumption that each "family" evolved by so-called natural selection.
If I didn't believe that God created the heavens and earth according to His interests, I may go along with the theory and like going into "classifications" and so forth, shrug my shoulders and consider it a great intellectual exercise, but instead what I have found is that the ToE is a concept that for the most part, I no longer go along with. Because -- no one was there when it all "happened." And more importantly, I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Basically, here is where I leave it, I may answer in the future, I most likely will, but thanks everyone for their discussion of -- *evolution.*

I do not believe murders took place unless others were their to see them. There are no living witnesses to Andrew Jackson's presidency. It never happened. Cars were invented fully formed as they exist now.

What you keep repeating Is that you do not understand evolution or how it is supported by evidence. Then you go on to repeat that you have chosen to substitute belief for scientific explanations based on evidence. So what is it you intend for your discussions here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks I really appreciate it. If you find out a source let me know.

I found a number recent news articles about the story and one had a link to this.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0589

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, I apologize, some of that I didn't edit well enough. So going on today --
OK, as an *evolving* outcome of this conversation, shall we use the term 'evolving', I looked up lions and whence did they *come from." And here's the first several words from Wikipedia: (I am only going over the so-called lineage.) Of course lions still do give birth to lions, humans to humans and chimpanzees to chimpanzees, BUT you say none of their evolution stopped, so, if I understand you correctly in your mind, they all just keep evolving, is that right?
But going on,
"The lion (Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae..." So I can learn more about the theory of evolution, let's perhaps start there. "Panthera leo" is a species in the family Felidae. OK, Panthera leo is a species in the family Felidae. That's what it says.
Then it goes on later on in the article (Lion - Wikipedia) to say, and I put in bold certain phrases right now at this juncture,
"The lion's closest relatives are the other species of the genus Panthera, namely tiger, snow leopard, jaguar, and leopard. Results of phylogenetic studies published in 2006 and 2009 indicate that the jaguar and the lion belong to one sister group that diverged about 2.06 million years ago.[9][10] Results of later studies indicate that the leopard and the lion belong to the same sister group, which diverged 3.1–1.95 million years ago"
Other species of the genus Panthera? The first sentence says that the lion (or Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae. So according to that, the lion is a species in the family Felidae. Then it says the lion's closest relatives are other species of the genus Panthera. Rather than going into every word right now, I looked up Felidae, and this is the first explanation of that word (according to wikipedia): "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats," So lions are a species in the family called Felidae, which is in the order Carnivora. I figure carnivora means mammals that are flesh eating (carnivores). All classification of the scientific sort, but no proof of -- evolution. All conjecture with the presumption that each "family" evolved by so-called natural selection.
If I didn't believe that God created the heavens and earth according to His interests, I may go along with the theory and like going into "classifications" and so forth, shrug my shoulders and consider it a great intellectual exercise, but instead what I have found is that the ToE is a concept that for the most part, I no longer go along with. Because -- no one was there when it all "happened." And more importantly, I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Basically, here is where I leave it, I may answer in the future, I most likely will, but thanks everyone for their discussion of -- *evolution.*

I accept that you reject this based on ideology. Many do. But the phylogeny is not based on conjecture. Studies of genes result in the same relationships and nested hierarchy. Studies of morphological characters reveal the same. Examination of fossils the same. It is easy to say It is conjecture, but difficult to support that claim. I have not seen it successfully demonstrated in 27 years debating this online.

 

[Bear Wild]

I found a number recent news articles about the story and one had a link to this.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0589

Saved the link and will read it tonight. Always appreciate the posts from my favorite rabbit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Saved the link and will read it tonight. Always appreciate the posts from my favorite rabbit.

Thanks.

 

[Bear Wild]

Sorry, I apologize, some of that I didn't edit well enough. So going on today --
OK, as an *evolving* outcome of this conversation, shall we use the term 'evolving', I looked up lions and whence did they *come from." And here's the first several words from Wikipedia: (I am only going over the so-called lineage.) Of course lions still do give birth to lions, humans to humans and chimpanzees to chimpanzees, BUT you say none of their evolution stopped, so, if I understand you correctly in your mind, they all just keep evolving, is that right?
But going on,
"The lion (Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae..." So I can learn more about the theory of evolution, let's perhaps start there. "Panthera leo" is a species in the family Felidae. OK, Panthera leo is a species in the family Felidae. That's what it says.
Then it goes on later on in the article (Lion - Wikipedia) to say, and I put in bold certain phrases right now at this juncture,
"The lion's closest relatives are the other species of the genus Panthera, namely tiger, snow leopard, jaguar, and leopard. Results of phylogenetic studies published in 2006 and 2009 indicate that the jaguar and the lion belong to one sister group that diverged about 2.06 million years ago.[9][10] Results of later studies indicate that the leopard and the lion belong to the same sister group, which diverged 3.1–1.95 million years ago"
Other species of the genus Panthera? The first sentence says that the lion (or Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae. So according to that, the lion is a species in the family Felidae. Then it says the lion's closest relatives are other species of the genus Panthera. Rather than going into every word right now, I looked up Felidae, and this is the first explanation of that word (according to wikipedia): "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats," So lions are a species in the family called Felidae, which is in the order Carnivora. I figure carnivora means mammals that are flesh eating (carnivores). All classification of the scientific sort, but no proof of -- evolution. All conjecture with the presumption that each "family" evolved by so-called natural selection.
If I didn't believe that God created the heavens and earth according to His interests, I may go along with the theory and like going into "classifications" and so forth, shrug my shoulders and consider it a great intellectual exercise, but instead what I have found is that the ToE is a concept that for the most part, I no longer go along with. Because -- no one was there when it all "happened." And more importantly, I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Basically, here is where I leave it, I may answer in the future, I most likely will, but thanks everyone for their discussion of -- *evolution.*
**Note - maybe carnivores are not only mammals--since some bugs and worms (which I don't think are mammals) eat flesh.

Clearly you are stuck on a human created classification system of words. No wonder you cant understand. There are some species on the earth with so few numbers that species that it is harder to see the variation that exists. There are many other organisms whose population are so large and vast that they show enough variation to see how even the word species develops problems. But even in the populations of lions and tigers (and bears o my) there are new traits and variations that are occurring. The problem is seeing enough change in the short lives of humans. By the way lions and tigers can mate and produce offspring so are they really different species?

 

[tas8831]

I didn't say it did.

You said that rendered humans non-apes, so yes, you did.

I can't explain everything. But the fact remains that humans alone possess a far greater intellect than any animal.

so you say.

Even if this is the case, that does not mean that humans do not belong to a group of similar taxa.

 

[tas8831]

Well, let's put it this way: humans are considered the last (or latest) in the line of evolution, are they not?

Not that I know of.

If I can follow you, let's start there. Yes or no. Are humans considered by scientists to be the last (or latest, for lack of a better term) in the line of evolution?

No.

 

[tas8831]

What criteria are you talking about? I said, Looking at it from a straight biological viewpoint, at the point that man's intellectual capability is greater than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc. So what criteria are you talking about that nullifies the difference between the reasoning and learning ability of man and chimpanzees?

Um...

You had been asked:

"At which point in that classification do humans fail to be apes?"

 

[Audie]

man's intellectual capability is greater

And the tree swinging ability of the gibbon
exceeds that or the human.

i dont think our friend has the capacity
to answer except with irrelevancies.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not that I know of.

No.

OK, I get your point. Maybe humans didn't come after dinosaurs either. Oh, no, maybe after birds which are said to come from dinosaurs. Maybe humans and bonobos emerged at the same time. I see what you're saying, because you really don't know, you're just surmising.

 

[YoursTrue]

Um...

You had been asked:

"At which point in that classification do humans fail to be apes?"

I have examined some of the answers believers in evolution offer, and I thank you for all that. At this point, since you claim humans ARE apes, because that is what has been told you, and what you think the evidence shows to be, that's the answer for you. Then again, according to the ToE, there are so-called major steps in between fish and apes, although it's a long distance from fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

You said that rendered humans non-apes, so yes, you did.

so you say.

Even if this is the case, that does not mean that humans do not belong to a group of similar taxa.

I saw reports about a scientist who tried to get a human to produce a monkey, so far hasn't worked. Monkeys still produce monkeys and humans produce humans. Maybe not enough time, someone might say, especially without human intervention.
Let me put it this way: upon examining your beliefs (which I would have fallen for hook, line, and pulled fish before I believed what the Bible has to say about creation), I am convinced that while I surely don't know everything as to the 'how' of how God did it, I'm realizing that the human body is not, and could not be, a product of chance "natural selection," by that I mean as evolving with all its complexities from whatever it is said to have evolved from. I say could not be because I can't imagine that the heart with its electrical impulses, the brain with its connections, the skin covering, the eyes, the bones, the blood, came about as a result of sheer mindless yes, by chance "natural selection" evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You said that rendered humans non-apes, so yes, you did.

so you say.

Even if this is the case, that does not mean that humans do not belong to a group of similar taxa.

Doesn't matter to me at this point if scientists believe that humans and relatives like bonobos and gorillas evolved from some unknown but conjectured "common ancestor." I thank you for the discussion. As I think about it, it's almost bordering on the ridiculous. No, not almost. I realize it is pretty well accepted including by medical doctors that I respect. Not because they may believe in evolution as taught in school, but for their expertise in their medical subjects.
That percent difference between humans and chimpanzees which supposedly evolved from that "last" common ancestor that just supposedly came about by chance, that is partially what I learned from these conversations, the swinging from trees of chimpanzees and gorillas to name a few, the fact that gorillas and chimps and bonobos have not yet figured how to read and write, build clarinets, manufacture cars and more, just that wee little bit of dna difference, yes, of course you say humans just happened to evolve just a little bit different from the relatives that came from that unknown LCA. Yes, some birds can sing pretty tunes, yes, some cows can sway to music, and it is enjoyable to listen and watch, just as pretty flowers are enjoyable to look at, and chimpanzees and dogs and cats can be amusing as well.

 

[tas8831]

OK, I get your point. Maybe humans didn't come after dinosaurs either. Oh, no, maybe after birds which are said to come from dinosaurs. Maybe humans and bonobos emerged at the same time. I see what you're saying, because you really don't know, you're just surmising.

You should have stopped writing at "OK, I get your point. ". Because as you kept writing, it became clear that no, you did NOT get my point.

 

[tas8831]

I have examined some of the answers believers in evolution offer, and I thank you for all that. At this point, since you claim humans ARE apes, because that is what has been told you,

And you claim humans are made from dirt, because that is what has been forced upon you.

Humans ARE apes because of how taxonomy and systematics works. Are humans mammals? Tetrapods? Animals? Someone familiar with systematics will says yes to all of those. Someone told that you are special creations since you were a toddler will not be able to shake that brainwashing and face reality.

Then again, according to the ToE, there are so-called major steps in between fish and apes, although it's a long distance from fish.

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[tas8831]

You said that rendered humans non-apes, so yes, you did.

so you say.

Even if this is the case, that does not mean that humans do not belong to a group of similar taxa.

I saw reports about a scientist who tried to get a human to produce a monkey, so far hasn't worked.

Yeah, um, I don't think you did.

Many years ago, a creationist claimed all mutations were bad, and to support this claim, she linked to an advertisement for the first X-Men movie - you see, the ad was one of those short pseudo-documentaries that pop up for some moves to generate a buzz.
She didn't know that it was a marketing thing. We had some good fun at her expense, as she had claimed to have taught high school science for 30 years.

Monkeys still produce monkeys and humans produce humans.

Brilliant observation.
And rocky cliffs look the same every day, too. Until you stop looking at them for 50 years and when you look again, you see that it has changed.

Let me put it this way: upon examining your beliefs (which I would have fallen for hook, line, and pulled fish before I believed what the Bible has to say about creation), I am convinced that while I surely don't know everything as to the 'how' of how God did it, I'm realizing that the human body is not, and could not be, a product of chance "natural selection," by that I mean as evolving with all its complexities from whatever it is said to have evolved from. I say could not be because I can't imagine that the heart with its electrical impulses, the brain with its connections, the skin covering, the eyes, the bones, the blood, came about as a result of sheer mindless yes, by chance "natural selection" evolution.

"because I can't imagine "

But you CAN imagine a tribal deity of the ancient Hebrews created the universe and everything in it in 6-24 hour days?
But you CAN imagine that the first human was made from dust, all at once, by deity magic?

You have a very selective imagination.
And what is worse, a really really bad tendency to ignore things that have been explained to you (e.g., "chance "natural selection" evolution").

 

[tas8831]

Doesn't matter to me at this point if scientists believe that humans and relatives like bonobos and gorillas evolved from some unknown but conjectured "common ancestor."

Of course it doesn't - it goes against your force-fed programming.

As I think about it, it's almost bordering on the ridiculous.

Creation via the Hebrew tribal deity? Good - you are coming around.