Evolution of what?

[Heyo]

No, that's not my argument against evolution. I'm saying that the thesis just simply cannot be proved in detail.

And so does science. Theories are never proven, by definition. Theories are supported by evidence. The ToE is supported by so much evidence that it comes as close to proven as a theory can get.

 

[Bthoth]

And so does science. Theories are never proven, by definition. Theories are supported by evidence. The ToE is supported by so much evidence that it comes as close to proven as a theory can get.

Can you explain how the ToE defines living processes?

I would love to see your scope.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not. It is one of your misconceptions that cause a lot of the confusion.
Humans are put in the great ape category by cladistics. (Developed by Carl Linné 100 years before Darwin.)
We are great apes because we share a lot of characteristics with chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas.
That we share those characteristics is a fact. The grouping is an accepted convention. It has nothing to do with evolution.


Again, not a thing to believe, just a fact.

So -- again -- according to you (and others) humans are great apes. You said above, "We are great apes" and went on to state why you say that.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not. It is one of your misconceptions that cause a lot of the confusion.
Humans are put in the great ape category by cladistics. (Developed by Carl Linné 100 years before Darwin.)
We are great apes because we share a lot of characteristics with chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas.
That we share those characteristics is a fact. The grouping is an accepted convention. It has nothing to do with evolution.


Again, not a thing to believe, just a fact.

Let me try again to understand what you are saying. I said, "Evolution puts humans in the "great ape" category, isn't that true?" And you replied that it's not true, right? But humans are put in the great ape category via Carl Linne, right? Then you go on to say that we are great apes because we share a lot of characteristics with chimpanzees, etc. But now I see that being a great ape or ape has nothing to do with evolution, it's just a term used to categorize what(?) humans are -- in other words, would it be wrong or right to say you believe humans are members of the "great ape" category because of similar characteristics but that has nothing to do with evolution, right? If not, please clarify. Either we are great apes or we're not great apes. Which is it?

 

[Heyo]

So -- again -- according to you (and others) humans are great apes. You said above, "We are great apes" and went on to state why you say that.

Yes, we are. And the important thing is that we still are even if we disregard evolution. You don't have to understand evolution or accept it to accept the fact that humans are great apes.

 

[Heyo]

Let me try again to understand what you are saying. I said, "Evolution puts humans in the "great ape" category, isn't that true?" And you replied that it's not true, right? But humans are put in the great ape category via Carl Linne, right? Then you go on to say that we are great apes because we share a lot of characteristics with chimpanzees, etc. But now I see that being a great ape or ape has nothing to do with evolution, it's just a term used to categorize what(?) humans are -- in other words, would it be wrong or right to say you believe humans are members of the "great ape" category because of similar characteristics but that has nothing to do with evolution, right? If not, please clarify. Either we are great apes or we're not great apes. Which is it?

I think you slowly get it.
The categories were there and were accepted by scientists long before Darwin was born.

 

[YoursTrue]

And so does science. Theories are never proven, by definition. Theories are supported by evidence. The ToE is supported by so much evidence that it comes as close to proven as a theory can get.

I did not say that theories are not proven by definition. That wouldn't make sense anyway because then it wouldn't be a theory. But you say that theories are supported by evidence. While I see evidence of the theory as considered by scientists that doesn't mean I believe it to be true. What is called evidence may support it, but it does not mean the theory as generally thought of by scientists is true. I'm not saying either that it is entirely untrue.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think you slowly get it.
The categories were there and were accepted by scientists long before Darwin was born.

Let me perfectly clear about this. Are we apes? Or are we not apes? I mean according to evolutionists. Hope I made myself clear this time, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Heyo -- I may have been unclear when I said that being a great ape has nothing to do with evolution. I said that because that is what I thought you were saying. So being a great ape is just a category? So I ask you -- do you or don't you believe humans evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor that spawned (for lack of better word now) chimpanzees, gorillas and the like, including among those evolved, humans and are all considered apes?

 

[Heyo]

Let me perfectly clear about this. Are we apes? Or are we not apes? I mean according to evolutionists. Hope I made myself clear this time, thank you.

We are apes. And that is not negotiable.

 

[YoursTrue]

We are apes. And that is not negotiable.

LOL, I am not negotiating it. I do not agree, but thank you for your forthright answer. Appreciate it. Therefore, I conclude also that if I call someone an ape of one sort or another, that person should not necessarily be offended, especially if he believes in evolution.

 

[Heyo]

@Heyo -- I may have been unclear when I said that being a great ape has nothing to do with evolution. I said that because that is what I thought you were saying. So being a great ape is just a category?

Yes.

So I ask you -- do you or don't you believe humans evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor that spawned (for lack of better word now) chimpanzees, gorillas and the like, including among those evolved, humans and are all considered apes?

I think that evolution, i.e. a common ancestor, is the best explanation why the groups came into existence.
You may think that humans, chimpanzees and gorillas are so much alike because a creator used a blueprint and only tweaked a few details.
That way we can have different explanations for the groups we are in and still agree that the groups make sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

I think that evolution, i.e. a common ancestor, is the best explanation why the groups came into existence.
You may think that humans, chimpanzees and gorillas are so much alike because a creator used a blueprint and only tweaked a few details.
That way we can have different explanations for the groups we are in and still agree that the groups make sense.

Here's the thing with me: -- I see that fish look like fish and dogs and wolves look somewhat alike -- etc. I know there are genetic differences. I understand the theory. Do I say that is how everything in life came about because I follow the theory to an extent? No. For several reasons, one of which is that while someone may say that humans evolved, and show pictures or what they consider as evidence, it is yes, not provable (even though some may present tests as if that means evolution is true), and yes, going on what is said to be so, but may not be so. I understand the thinking or theory that some fish developed legs which took them out of water for a while, then forever more or less, losing the ability to stay continuously under water -- but again -- this to me is not the proof that humans developed by natural selection from whatever came first. (Like amoeba perhaps?) Maybe if I have time I'll really go into it. But thank you for your answer and consideration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me perfectly clear about this. Are we apes? Or are we not apes? I mean according to evolutionists. Hope I made myself clear this time, thank you.

Yes, according to realists we are apes. Fantasists disagree.

 

[sayak83]

Um...there ARE NO details. Here is what I will say: science simply cannot in any way beyond conjecture show/prove/demonstrate that fish eventually became humans. Land roving fish or fish with 4 legs do not prove/show/demonstrate that they eventually evolved to become apes. You may think so; others may think so; I no longer do. Because there really IS no demonstrable proof, and yes, proof is the only word possible here. Fish remain fish. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees. (Humans remain humans.) I used to believe what "science" taught me in school. I believe that vaccines can help mitigate the ill effects of some diseases. I am not against science. Imagining the evolution of fish to humans (first apes, then humans from some unknown common ancestor ape) is something I no longer believe because -- it (1) is not provable, (2) is not demonstrable, (3) fossils that appear to look like apes or fish or birds do not prove/demonstrate/show the various forms evolved. (Have a good one...)

Yes fossils do demonstrate that various forms evolved. The genetic similarities do demonstrate that evolution happened. The evolutionary changes observed in fields and labs demonstrate the same. Your personal opinion on what counts as a demonstration or not does not matter. Nothing can demonstrate the spherical shape of the earth to flat earth believers also. But their opinions are frankly.... irrelevant. Same for yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, that's not my argument against evolution. I'm saying that the thesis just simply cannot be proved in detail.

If your objection to evolution is that "it can not be proven", then your objection is to ALL OF SCIENCE
You should understand by now why that is.

Experiments are done, chemicals put together by humans that are said to "prove" the theory, but going over all that -- are humans apes? Science says so, doesn't it?

Yes humans are apes. They are also mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Um...there ARE NO details. Here is what I will say: science simply cannot in any way beyond conjecture show/prove/demonstrate that fish eventually became humans.

Not "modern fish" off course. Modern fish did not evolve into humans, true.
Ancient sealife, over the course of some 500 milion years, did.

As for supporting that, it's pretty much a genetic fact as phylogenetic trees demonstrate.
We share ancestors with modern fish. And pretty much everything else that is alive and of which we have sequenced the genome.

Land roving fish or fish with 4 legs do not prove/show/demonstrate that they eventually evolved to become apes.

Genetics does.

You may think so; others may think so; I no longer do. Because there really IS no demonstrable proof, and yes, proof is the only word possible here.

Our collective genomes prove we share ancestors in the exact same way your DNA and that of your siblings prove you share parents.

Fish remain fish. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees. (Humans remain humans.)

How many more times are you going to repeat this error and how many more times does it need to be corrected and explained how ignorant it is before you will stop repeating this falsehood?

I used to believe what "science" taught me in school. I believe that vaccines can help mitigate the ill effects of some diseases. I am not against science.

Everything your write about biology etc, suggests the opposite.

Imagining the evolution of fish to humans (first apes, then humans from some unknown common ancestor ape) is something I no longer believe because -- it (1) is not provable, (2) is not demonstrable, (3) fossils that appear to look like apes or fish or birds do not prove/demonstrate/show the various forms evolved. (Have a good one...)

Fossils support evolution.
Genetics makes common ancestry a demonstrable fact.

You can stick your head in the sand in willful ignorance. It won't make the facts go away.
You can repeat silly errors like "chimps remain chimps". It won't make the facts go away.

All you accomplish, is that nobody takes you seriously and that you will make sure to be wrong and argue strawmen.


ow well

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not a scientist but I can ask questions.

You sure aren't a scientist.
You sure can ask questions.

The problem is that you ignore the answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps some people are classified by evolutionists as a Christian ape.

You know.... when YOU say this, we all know you are trying to be insulting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wasn't there. Meantime it would be proper to call someone a Christian ape?

About as proper as calling someone a christian mammal.