Humans and Chimp, its True...

[Man of Faith]

Hi Man of Faith,

Something I will tell you, that I doubt any of the others would, in order to accept the chimp-human relationship, you must also accept the power of association attached to it, that we did evolve from a common ancestor. There is no hard core evidence to conclude this, albeit we do have circumstantial evidence based on genetic codes as it pertains to our relationship to chimps.

Fossile records at this stage could mean anything. Yes they could be a line in serious of evolution stages, then again they could all be single lines which lead to extinction. We really do not know, but we will relate and associate to them with the best our imagination can offer. Anything to fill the picture in and make it complete.

What the fossile records show at this point in time is jumps in stages. When examined, clearly different species. In order to get the picture as portrayed by biology, now you have to put your imagination to work, you have to fill in the jumps of stages with imagined pictures of a slow, slow, transitional state that eventually turned hominidae, into homo habilis, possibly throw neanderthals in there and hey presto homo sapiens appear. If our time line is anywhere near correct, keep in mind our fossile records are very much incomplete if biology is right, there could be 10's of different looking species between hominindae and homo habilis, we still have about another 800,000 years before the next evolution stage. Using a morphing software it took 35 frames to get suggested images of hominidae to turn into homo habilis, each frame noticeably different to the adjacent frames. A similar amount to get homo habilis to turn into homo sapien. However biology suggests we are creeping up on this very, very slowly, one generation at a time and we won't notice it happening. By my morphing software we should see a discernable difference in the human species after about 28,000 years (my morphing software is pretty old). Which could be about right if we look at the discernable, difference between the Australian Aboriginal and the main stream Australian. However all speculation of course.

This though is no different to your own belief, before you can beleive in the miracles of God, you must first accept the association that God exists.

This is a very good post, thank you. It is honest that the genetic code is circumstantial evidence, the fossil records could mean anything, and evolution from common descent is imagination at work. Bravo to you.

 

[Man of Faith]

That a boy! Underdog pops out of nowhere!

 

[Man of Faith]

Well the problem here is Hovind, Ham and others like them...including you...don't have a clue as to what the facts really are because, as you clearly admit, you will not accept the facts if they disagree with your worldview.

I will agree with facts if they are really facts. My worldview forces me to have evolutionists produce real facts that follow the scientific method, not speculation, circumstantional evidence and imagination that are called facts. That is why I want Gabe to show me how the scientific method brought him to common descent. If he can do that, then it is a fact.

 

[Man of Faith]

Do we evolve or not....Take your pick....You've been stating we don't and there's no evidence and it's all in our minds..but then come right out and say evolution happens....

I agree to use the word evolve for expediencies sake. I don't want to waste time equivocating on the difference between evolve, micro-evolution, and adapt right not, because I am about to embark on a exciting journey.

 

[Man of Faith]

If you ladies are done bickering I am waiting for Man of Faiths questions regarding this entire issue, I hope he did not forget about it / Ignored it.

I can not tell you how excited I am, I am so thrilled to get a chance to explain what you are confused about and really eager to show you the real world, I hope you are open to accept facts and reality and truly are as excited as I am to propagate

Okay Gabe, I think I am back up to speed on our conversation. Let's get started. I don't want to rush though this because I want to be very methodical and get this right. It might be the case that I will need to take some time to study something that I hear along the way. So if I don't respond for a while, don't worry I will make sure I respond at least within a few hours of each post with something to let you know where I am.

The scientific method that we both agreed on and that you provided is below. I want to follow that because that is the method for science to know anything as a fact. And I want the scientific method to take us to common descent because the claim is that evolution via common descent is science.

What do we need to begin? From the chart it looks like we need a question. We need to ask a question. Let us try to agree on what question we should ask. My recommendation is the question is "Is evolution via common descent true?" Or it could be "Are humans and chimps cousins?" If you had a different one in mind let me know, I will wait on your feedback on what the question should be.

 

[johnhanks]

The same proteins that do certain functions in chimps can do the same functions in humans. That could be from design.

What design principle lay behind humans and chimps possessing an identically broken vitamin C gene?

 

[dust1n]

What design principle lay behind humans and chimps possessing an identically broken vitamin C gene?

:cigar::rainbow1:

 

[Gabethewiking]

I already responded with a well written and good post (if I may say so myself), but it all went away and this is the second time I am writing this so I apologize for being as short as possible, I am not very happy at this point.

The scientific method that we both agreed on and that you provided is below.

Well, the included graph is a simple example of what we could use as the 'scientific method'. The graph may be something seen in a students highschool exam and wish to make sure that you realize that this is a very simplified version of it (which I pointed to before I was 'forced' to include one for you).

I want to follow that because that is the method for science to know anything as a fact.

Well, No, this is not entirely correct.

"Fact" is something we prefer avoiding in science as it somehow indicates "truth" or "absoluteness".. I am sorry, I am still so annoyed I lost everything I wrote earlier, I spent alot of time making it well written for you to avoid issues, I am really annoyed by it and not very happy...

We define something as "fact" when we have enough information about it that it would be ludicrous to not consider it a fact. Two examples of basic known facts is the shape of Terra and our Evolution, these two things we know is "True"(tm) and are both "facts".

You could, for example, say (correctly) that I am wrong if I claim that the Earth is a sphere, you would point to the bulges in the 'spherical' earth and devoid the usage of "sphere", but most people would consider it spherical either way, fortunately facts are not a majority opinion.

What do we need to begin? From the chart it looks like we need a question. We need to ask a question. Let us try to agree on what question we should ask. My recommendation is the question is "Is evolution via common descent true?" Or it could be "Are humans and chimps cousins?" If you had a different one in mind let me know, I will wait on your feedback on what the question should be.

Well, technically, we already begun and this would be the continuation, but alas :drool:

As Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin already provided us with a answer to the first question (it is 'Yes' if you where not aware) around 150 years ago I do not find it a suitable question.

The second one on the other hand may be very suitable as I know religious people have issues with other Animals and seem to be "insulted" by being related to other Apes (even if the Chimpanzees could certainly claim insult as well), so let us take that one.

Are Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) 'cousins' ?

 

[Man of Faith]

I already responded with a well written and good post (if I may say so myself), but it all went away and this is the second time I am writing this so I apologize for being as short as possible, I am not very happy at this point.





Well, the included graph is a simple example of what we could use as the 'scientific method'. The graph may be something seen in a students highschool exam and wish to make sure that you realize that this is a very simplified version of it (which I pointed to before I was 'forced' to include one for you).



Well, No, this is not entirely correct.

"Fact" is something we prefer avoiding in science as it somehow indicates "truth" or "absoluteness".. I am sorry, I am still so annoyed I lost everything I wrote earlier, I spent alot of time making it well written for you to avoid issues, I am really annoyed by it and not very happy...

We define something as "fact" when we have enough information about it that it would be ludicrous to not consider it a fact. Two examples of basic known facts is the shape of Terra and our Evolution, these two things we know is "True"(tm) and are both "facts".

You could, for example, say (correctly) that I am wrong if I claim that the Earth is a sphere, you would point to the bulges in the 'spherical' earth and devoid the usage of "sphere", but most people would consider it spherical either way, fortunately facts are not a majority opinion.



Well, technically, we already begun and this would be the continuation, but alas :drool:

As Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin already provided us with a answer to the first question (it is 'Yes' if you where not aware) around 150 years ago I do not find it a suitable question.

The second one on the other hand may be very suitable as I know religious people have issues with other Animals and seem to be "insulted" by being related to other Apes (even if the Chimpanzees could certainly claim insult as well), so let us take that one.

Are Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) 'cousins' ?

Good post Gabe, I agree with the question. Now the next step is somewhat ambiguous to me, "Do background research". I assume this is so we can come up with a hypothesis, which is our proposed explanation for the question. Having discussed, reasearched and debated the evolution vs creation debate for a about four years, I have done considerable research into my position.

Let me know what you want to do about that step. As far as I am concerned we both have done considerable research into our positions. If you have something you want me to read for that step, let me know. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Nothwithstanding that there is no evidence for this and it is all made up out of man's imagination, it is not even belieavable. Let me put to bed this notion that people don't believe in evolution because they are ignorant. The more I learn about evolution the more I see it's weaknesses, not its strenghts. Evolution is a dying theory, it can no longer be propped up through intimidation and the courts. People are too sophistaced for that, we want evidence, not empty name calling and scare tactics.

98% of all fossils have been discovered. The evidence for evolution is just not there in the fossil record. Random mutation cannot account for increased information. As dogs evolve ino new breeds we see that DNA information decreases.

Your dishonesty astonishes me. I've offered many times to show you all the evidence, and you have consistently declined. Let me repeat and clarify. You refuse to look at the evidence, and then you go on the internet and deny that it exists. Furthermore, you are not even interested in learning what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is. You're a prime example of someone who only manages to maintain their lack of acceptance by working overtime on remaining ignorant.

My offer remains open. I am more than happy to explain ToE to you, and the evidence that supports it, which has led it to become the foundation of modern Biology. Whether you accept my offer is up to you. But to refuse it, and then deny your ignorance, and assert there is no evidence, is dishonesty, pure and simple. In this you exemplify the typical creationist.

Could you please explain what you mean by "information? How does this "DNA information" decrease in dog breeds? Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

98% of all fossils have been discovered.

Please provide your source for this lie. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

You put up a drawing of the ToE, showing how mankind evolved from something other than mankind. Preposterous. That has never been seen and is imagination. Whenever we find evidence of man living in the past we always find evidence of them doing things, like building pyramids that we cannot duplicate. How were they that smart we ask. It's because they were intelligent just like us, there is no evidence they evolved from animals.

And I'm guessing that you're not interested in looking at the mountains of evidence that we are in fact animals?

 

[Tristesse]

Good post Gabe, I agree with the question. Now the next step is somewhat ambiguous to me, "Do background research". I assume this is so we can come up with a hypothesis, which is our proposed explanation for the question. Having discussed, reasearched and debated the evolution vs creation debate for a about four years, I have done considerable research into my position.

Let me know what you want to do about that step. As far as I am concerned we both have done considerable research into our positions. If you have something you want me to read for that step, let me know. Thank you.

Well, no offense MoF. But for someone who claims to have done considerable "research," you seem to have an extremely poor understanding of evolution. In some of your posts you say things like, "if evolution is true why don't we see a dog giving birth to a cat?" or something along those lines. I mean that is just a willful ignorance of the highest degree on your part. Or maybe it's just a matter of you only listening to people who already agree with your preconceived notion that evolution is false and "god" created everything.

How much research could possibly be done with a position that just boldly asserts that "magic man did it?" Can you describe the process by which he created life? Can you describe anything about him that doesn't resort to vagaries? If not, than it's not an adequate description of how life-forms change and evolve overtime.

 

[Man of Faith]

Your dishonesty astonishes me. I've offered many times to show you all the evidence, and you have consistently declined. Let me repeat and clarify. You refuse to look at the evidence, and then you go on the internet and deny that it exists. Furthermore, you are not even interested in learning what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is. You're a prime example of someone who only manages to maintain their lack of acceptance by working overtime on remaining ignorant.

My offer remains open. I am more than happy to explain ToE to you, and the evidence that supports it, which has led it to become the foundation of modern Biology. Whether you accept my offer is up to you. But to refuse it, and then deny your ignorance, and assert there is no evidence, is dishonesty, pure and simple. In this you exemplify the typical creationist.

Could you please explain what you mean by "information? How does this "DNA information" decrease in dog breeds? Thank you.

Thanks Auto, but I think I found out what the problem was. I don't want the ToE explained to me, I can go listen to Dawkins for that. I have heard it so many times and I have forgotten it many times over. What I want to do is experience it for myself, first hand. Just like I experience gravity, computers, and a round earth. That is why I am in the process of doing just that with Gabe. I think if I experience it myself, or see how those that claim they were led to it via science, then I will have a better understanding of it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

98% of all fossils have been discovered.

Please provide your source for this lie. Thank you.

Yes, we are all eagerly awaiting your source :yes:

 

[Autodidact]

You put up a drawing of the ToE, showing how mankind evolved from something other than mankind. Preposterous. That has never been seen and is imagination. Whenever we find evidence of man living in the past we always find evidence of them doing things, like building pyramids that we cannot duplicate. How were they that smart we ask. It's because they were intelligent just like us, there is no evidence they evolved from animals.

What we see and the evidence shows is creatures evolve or adapt within specific boundaries. There is no such thing as a dogcat or an apehuman.

Of course there's no such thing as a dogcat. If there were, ToE would be false, and it's not. As for an apehuman, surprise! You are one, and so am I. Homo sapiens is a species of ape.

 

[Autodidact]

Did I hear someone say that the movie Expelled wasn't true? Well here is the evidence that it is true and exactly what I am talking about that evolution is propogated through intimidation and fear. If I am a scientist this is what is waiting for me if I don't toe the party line on evolution.

Oh yeah, those horrible scientists burning Christians at the stake for refusing to adopt the orthodox view. It's horrible. Oh wait, that was the church burning the scientists. Never mind.

 

[Autodidact]

Did I hear someone say that the movie Expelled wasn't true? Well here is the evidence that it is true and exactly what I am talking about that evolution is propogated through intimidation and fear. If I am a scientist this is what is waiting for me if I don't toe the party line on evolution.

I will look at data, but I won't accept anything as fact unless I go to my own sources.

Just to be clear: then you refuse to read anything by an actual scientist, unless they sign on the a Young Earth Creationist manifesto first? You reject Biology as a source of knowledge about living things? I'm guessing that you also reject Geology, since it asserts that the planet is 4.56 billion years old? And anthropology and archeology and physics (radiometric dating.) Basically you reject science itself as a method to learn about the world? Is that about right? I imagine maintiainng that level of ignorance takes a lot of work.

 

[McBell]

Yes, we are all eagerly awaiting your source :yes:

Please tell me that ya'll ain't holding your breath whilst waiting.....

 

[Autodidact]

Gabe,
I believe you are sincere and to that I say bravo to you. However I believe there is only one place for the facts about how we got here and that is the Bible. Everything that I see marries up to that. Everything that I see is contrary to the ToE. I believe it is you that needs to learn, not me. You need to get away from those evolution promoting websites and start spending time on the creation ones and get better information.

So when learning about the natural world, rather than using science, your position is that we should get our information from the Bible, is that right?

For example, when you're sick, do you rely on medical science, or faith healing?