Evolution, violence and the existence of God

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It proves that they were somewhat similar animals, ...

False. It proves both dogs and wolves came from the same ancestor-- they are, to use the colloquial, kissin' cousins. Indeed-- you can force-breed larger dogs with wolves, and have viable offspring. They are the same species, under some defintions of "species".

... which we knew already by the leg at each corner and teeth at one end!, the same reason that direct ancestry was erroneously assumed as proven 150 years ago- just like birds from dinos and men from apes

Nobody seriously said "men from apes"-- again, that was non-scientific colloquial speech.

Scientists have said from the beginning, common ancestry, which has been proven beyond any doubt, using DNA evidence. There is no controversy: humans and apes share an ancestor.

How far back we have to go to find this new mysterious common ancestor is a complete guess, but one more 'proven transition' and 'undeniable proof' of evolution has retreated back into the shadows-

What? Nothing you said here, adds to the conversation other than you are expressing your failure to understand biological Evolution.

all we can tell empirically, scientifically, is that dogs were dogs and wolves were wolves as far back as the record goes.

100% false. The DNA is without question, evidence dogs and wolves were once the same group-- and looked the same, were the same species.

A species which split into at least two groups: dogs and wolves.

This is fact. You can deny the facts all you like--but your belief is not required here.

That is how Reality works-- it cares little what anyone thinks.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"A small number of forms of life appear to match the definition of a ring species. The classic example is that of the Larus gull, which in 1925 was found to form a chain of varieties around the Arctic Circle by Jonathan Dwight, but lately doubts have arisen as to whether this is an actual ring species.[3] In 1938, Claud Buchanan Ticehurst hypothesized the greenish warbler spread from Nepal around the Tibetan Plateau, while adapting to each new environment, meeting again in Siberia where the ends no longer interbreed.[4] These and other discoveries led Ernst Mayr to first formulate a theory on ring species in his 1942 study Systematics and the Origin of Species. Also in the 1940s, Robert C. Stebbins recognised the Ensatina around the Californian Central Valley as a ring species;[5][6]however, some authors consider this classification as incorrect.[7] Finally in 2012, the first example of a ring species in plants was found in a spurge form around the Caribbean Sea.[8]

The textbook examples of ring species, [], have all been challenged, so ring species are at best rare"

It's an interesting enough theory, but even evolutionists hardly seem 100% convinced, far less confident than they were about Piltdown man apparently!

But either way similar varieties of Gulls and Warblers etc is small pretty scale adaptation wouldn't you say? Not macro evolution

Your "quote mine" is from ... 1940's? SERIOUSLY?

Pardon me whilst I LAUGH and LAUGH and LAUGH and LAUGH.... Oh. My. You could not be more wrong.

The textbook examples of ring species, [], have all been challenged, so ring species are at best rare"

100% false-- I can think of quite a number off the top of my head. Most are birds, true-- but several are amphibians.

My favorite amphibian? Is the Mississippi Leopard Frog. (alas, due to Man's Influence, it's going extinct...! )

All up and down the Mississippi River, you (used to) find this little critter-- it will happily mate with another member of it's species so long as you pay attention to gender.

And so long as you sample no more than 3-10 miles apart, up and down the river.

These little beasts will happily make Baby Frogs, with any random sample-pair all up and down the river-- in a very smooth sampling regimen--- so long as you keep within the 3-10 mile limit.

Once you start sampling wider and wider pairs? The breeding becomes less certain, and the defective offspring happen more and more. Eventually, you must force things in a lab, to even get the widly spread parent' eggs and sperm to mix-- and most eggs simply don't germinate at all, the few who do look like Damaged Goods.

When you get the samples far enough apart? Even in a lab, you cannot combine the male seed with the female eggs-- nothing happens at all.

Yet we can take samples anywhere along the entire River Basin, and get viable babies.

But take a momma from Minneapolis and a daddy from New Orleans, and they don't even look the same!


The existence of such creatures 100% destroys "created by design". You cannot ignore this fact-- your "created by design" HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS PHENOMENA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

False. It proves both dogs and wolves came from the same ancestor-- they are, to use the colloquial, kissin' cousins. Indeed-- you can force-breed larger dogs with wolves, and have viable offspring. They are the same species, under some defintions of "species".



Nobody seriously said "men from apes"-- again, that was non-scientific colloquial speech.

Scientists have said from the beginning, common ancestry, which has been proven beyond any doubt, using DNA evidence. There is no controversy: humans and apes share an ancestor.

"humans and apes share an ancestor. "

which was?

where are the fossils? when/ where did it live? what did it look like?

Philosophical speculation, extrapolation, conjecture, nobody knows and guesses have constantly changed with fashion

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your "quote mine" is from ... 1940's? SERIOUSLY?

Pardon me whilst I LAUGH and LAUGH and LAUGH and LAUGH.... Oh. My. You could not be more wrong.

actually It was from your link

Ring species - Wikipedia

• This page was last edited on 9 April 2017, at 08:25.

I will pardon you while you wipe the egg off your chin!

100% false-- I can think of quite a number off the top of my head. Most are birds, true-- but several are amphibians.

My favorite amphibian? Is the Mississippi Leopard Frog. (alas, due to Man's Influence, it's going extinct...! )

All up and down the Mississippi River, you (used to) find this little critter-- it will happily mate with another member of it's species so long as you pay attention to gender.

And so long as you sample no more than 3-10 miles apart, up and down the river.

These little beasts will happily make Baby Frogs, with any random sample-pair all up and down the river-- in a very smooth sampling regimen--- so long as you keep within the 3-10 mile limit.

Once you start sampling wider and wider pairs? The breeding becomes less certain, and the defective offspring happen more and more. Eventually, you must force things in a lab, to even get the widly spread parent' eggs and sperm to mix-- and most eggs simply don't germinate at all, the few who do look like Damaged Goods.

When you get the samples far enough apart? Even in a lab, you cannot combine the male seed with the female eggs-- nothing happens at all.

Yet we can take samples anywhere along the entire River Basin, and get viable babies.

But take a momma from Minneapolis and a daddy from New Orleans, and they don't even look the same!


The existence of such creatures 100% destroys "created by design". You cannot ignore this fact-- your "created by design" HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS PHENOMENA.

They are all still frogs though..... right?


There are more light/ white cars in Arizona than Minnesota where most are dark/ black... by your rationale "created by design" HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS PHENOMENA.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"humans and apes share an ancestor. "

which was?

where are the fossils? when/ where did it live? what did it look like?

Philosophical speculation, extrapolation, conjecture, nobody knows and guesses have constantly changed with fashion

Oh, dear-- you seem to think I am supposed to correct your severe educational defficiencies.

The most ruinous (against creationism) evidence? Human chromosome 2.

Since I doubt very much you even know why that destroys your complaint?

I'll give you a little summary: Human chromosome 22 is a fused pair. It used to be two pairs, separate and distinct, but sometime in the past, has fused.

This is required, if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor-- as they most certainly do. Because, as you are no doubt completely unaware, humans have 2 fewer than chimps... (humans have 23 pair, chimps have 24 pair...)

But here ya go: some light reading to bootstrap your educational lack:


Proof of evolution:
1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
5) How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine
6) TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
7) Evolution
8) 101 Reasons Why Evolution is True | ideonexus.com
9) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

actually It was from your link

Ring species - Wikipedia

• This page was last edited on 9 April 2017, at 08:25.

I will pardon you while you wipe the egg off your chin!

I see Quote Mining is still the #1 tactic used by creationists---- no WONDER they keep losing the argument....

I have no egg-- it's all on you -- you carefully selected OUT OF DATE snippet you THOUGHT supported your silliness.

They are all still frogs though..... right?

So? Humans AND chimps are still Mammals-- which shows how SILLY your "point" is.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, dear-- you seem to think I am supposed to correct your severe educational defficiencies.

The most ruinous (against creationism) evidence? Human chromosome 2.

Since I doubt very much you even know why that destroys your complaint?

I'll give you a little summary: Human chromosome 22 is a fused pair. It used to be two pairs, separate and distinct, but sometime in the past, has fused.

This is required, if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor-- as they most certainly do. Because, as you are no doubt completely unaware, humans have 2 fewer than chimps... (humans have 23 pair, chimps have 24 pair...)

But here ya go: some light reading to bootstrap your educational lack:


Proof of evolution:
1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
5) How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine
6) TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
7) Evolution
8) 101 Reasons Why Evolution is True | ideonexus.com
9) Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
12) Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
13) Understanding Evolution
14) Welcome to Evolution 101!

so there are no actual fossils, we don't what this common ancestor was, we can only guess

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I see Quote Mining is still the #1 tactic used by creationists---- no WONDER they keep losing the argument....

I have no egg-- it's all on you -- you carefully selected OUT OF DATE snippet you THOUGHT supported your silliness.



So? Humans AND chimps are still Mammals-- which shows how SILLY your "point" is.

As below- the belief in these examples is what is out of date, we know better now- like dogs from wolves, birds from dinos, -evolutionary links no longer 'proved' by superficial similarities 150 years ago

scientific progress is a wonderful thing

"The textbook examples of ring species, including the circumpolar herring gull complex, the greenish warbler of Asia, and the Ensatina salamanders of America, have all been challenged, so ring species are at best rare"

This is the conclusion from your link, not mine! I don't think you are silly, I used to believe in all that stuff also

 

[Jose Fly]

But either way similar varieties of Gulls and Warblers etc is small pretty scale adaptation wouldn't you say? Not macro evolution

And Guy has gone full Deeje......"that's adaptation, not evolution".

Hilarious.

 

[Jose Fly]

"humans and apes share an ancestor. "

which was?

where are the fossils? when/ where did it live? what did it look like?

My cousins and I share a common ancestor from the French/German border area around 350 years ago. But I guess if we can't say exactly who he was or dig up his bones, then it's just as likely that we were all instantaneously and separately created by God, rather than descended from any French/German person.

 

[Jose Fly]

so there are no actual fossils, we don't what this common ancestor was, we can only guess

Unlike in the fundamentalist world where everything is in black/white terms, we can infer from the data what the common ancestor was, what it looked like, where it lived, and when it lived.

In the non-black/white world, there's a lot of room between "knowing for certain" and "complete guesswork".

 

[Nirvana]

"humans and apes share an ancestor. "

which was?

where are the fossils? when/ where did it live? what did it look like?

Philosophical speculation, extrapolation, conjecture, nobody knows and guesses have constantly changed with fashion

See? That`s where you prove yourself ignorant. Go the National Museum of natural history. Bob already made the point about the chromosome. Human chromosome 2!! Humans have 46 of chromosome and Chimpanzees have 48. So what happened to that extra pair? That`s why I keep suggesting you to read about evolution instead of just coming here and askng about fossils. We have lots of fossils. We have Australopithecus afarensis, Homo Habilis, Homo erectus etc. Just Go and look!!! We even have the intermediate between land and water. It was recently found and is known as Tiktaalik. Again I`d suggest you to read, the greatest show on Earth by Dawkins and Finding Darwin`s God by Miller because I want you to understand evolution. Understand it and then argue!!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

See? That`s where you prove yourself ignorant. Go the National Museum of natural history. Bob already made the point about the chromosome. Human chromosome 2!! Humans have 46 of chromosome and Chimpanzees have 48. So what happened to that extra pair? That`s why I keep suggesting you to read about evolution instead of just coming here and askng about fossils. We have lots of fossils. We have Australopithecus afarensis, Homo Habilis, Homo erectus etc. Just Go and look!!! We even have the intermediate between land and water. It was recently found and is known as Tiktaalik. Again I`d suggest you to read, the greatest show on Earth by Dawkins and Finding Darwin`s God by Miller because I want you to understand evolution. Understand it and then argue!!

so that's a no then, no fossils of this common ancestor.

Piltdown man occupied natural history museums for decades, I'm interested in the science of natural history, not creative reconstructions!

 

[Nirvana]

Which common ancestor? Btw I`m talking about real fossils, they aren`t reconstructions. You can google them all. Y

 

[metis]

Piltdown man occupied natural history museums for decades, I'm interested in the science of natural history, not creative reconstructions!

Are you aware that a hoax like Piltdown could not happen again, at least here in the west? Nowadays, any such find must be allowed to be inspected by other scientists, including running tests on them if appropriate, which was not allowed with Piltdown by Dawson himself nor his widow at first.

 

[viole]

I know this is an usual topic but I`m new over here. So let your ideas flow on this thread

I believe yours is a very serious question,

What I can tell you is this. Evolution by natural selection is totally at odds with the belief in a benevolent God who knows what He wants.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I know this is an usual topic but I`m new over here. So let your ideas flow on this thread

Evolution is a factual, observable process. Violence is a behavior animals engage in for various reasons, primarily rooted in survival and competition. The existence of god is hypothesized by some humans as a predictable extension and projection of their ego/identity and fear of non-existence and the unknown.

There are multiple avenues of connection between these three subjects, but without something more substantial to go off of, there isn't really a basis for a meaningful discussion.

 

[viole]

"humans and apes share an ancestor. "

which was?

where are the fossils? when/ where did it live? what did it look like?

Philosophical speculation, extrapolation, conjecture, nobody knows and guesses have constantly changed with fashion

It is obvious that humans and apes share a common ancestor, since we are still apes. That should fit with your "kinds" theory, as well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's a good one, you learned me something. The righteous blood starts with Abel. But you missed my point, either on purpose in order to inject your point, or by I don't know why...

repeat point ?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It is obvious that humans and apes share a common ancestor, since we are still apes. That should fit with your "kinds" theory, as well.
Ciao
- viole

Since humans can't reproduce with apes then ape kinds are not human kinds.