Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Sonofason]

Ah ... but it is, that is the basic kind of Darwinian evolution. Natural selection is the cause of diversity within a species.

Species result from different gene frequencies occurring in separate, non-overlapping geographic areas, allopatric populations of related organisms are unable to interbreed because of geographic separation.

Sorry, that has never been observed. There is diversity of species. We can observe that. But evolution of species into other species has never been observed.

Species is a recent term. The Bible never uses the word species. The Word of God speaks of "kinds" of creatures. And no kind of creature has ever been observed changing into another kind of creature. If you think it has, show your evidence.

 

[McBell]

Sorry, that has never been observed. There is diversity of species. We can observe that. But evolution of species into other species has never been observed.

Species is a recent term. The Bible never uses the word species. The Word of God speaks of "kinds" of creatures. And no kind of creature has ever been observed changing into another kind of creature. If you think it has, show your evidence.

please be so kind as to define "kind" in a meaningful and or useful way that does not need to be changed once you are shown to be wrong.

Will you be the first one in history to accomplish it?

 

[Sonofason]

I totally agree, which is why I didn't use it that way.

I wasn't discussing diversity within a species, but actually the change in frequency of traits within a species across generations. That is what evolution is.

evolution
- noun
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Wikipedia: "Evolution, also known as descent with modification, is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations."

Care to provide better unbiased scientific sources that disagree?

So, again, if you are using the term "evolution" to mean anything other than that, then you aren't referring to the same evolution that anyone who is accurately using the term is referring to. In other words, you'd merely be arguing against a straw man, not the actual claim which people are really making.

You wouldn't want to do that, now would you?

You know, I have no idea why I continue down this road so far, as I so often do. It was my intention to say only that I don't believe that you and many others who claim that evolution is true have actually observed evidence showing that it is true. To me, evolution makes a bit of sense, but I have not observed it taking place, neither have I confirmed that apes have DNA that is near 98% similar to that of human beings. It could be true for all I know. But I honestly don't know that as a matter of fact. I also believe that most people who believe evolution is true have not seen that evidence either. And I believe that most people making the claim that evolution is true are actually just taking someone's word for it. And I personally see no good reason to take anyone's word for anything at all.

The Bible does not contradict the Bible, or at least, I don't see any contradiction. So forgive me for suggesting that I believe that evolution is not true. I have no idea if it is true. It very well could be, and to tell you the honest truth, I really don't care if it is true. In fact, it seems to me that the Book of Genesis in the Bible might even suggest that evolution is true. The Bible tells us that all creatures were brought forth either from the waters, or from the earth. And so that is what I believe. How that happened, I really don't know. It seems to me that God had something to do with it, as God had said, "Let the earth bring forth grass...", " Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life", and "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind". Upon God's will, the earth and the waters brought forth. Furthermore, we notice that God said that all creatures that are brought forth are brought forth after their own kind. And indeed that is true. We don't see different species of animals bringing forth other kinds of creatures. And so it seems the Bible is true, whether or not evolution is true.

 

[Sonofason]

please be so kind as to define "kind" in a meaningful and or useful way that does not need to be changed once you are shown to be wrong.

Will you be the first one in history to accomplish it?

Please see post 2483

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, that has never been observed. There is diversity of species. We can observe that. But evolution of species into other species has never been observed.

Species is a recent term. The Bible never uses the word species. The Word of God speaks of "kinds" of creatures. And no kind of creature has ever been observed changing into another kind of creature. If you think it has, show your evidence.

This is difficult dilemma, but not because you have a point.

You are, quite simply, wrong (except that indeed there is no reference to species in the Bible).

Speciation is plenty observed enough, but I suppose you have not observed it in person. It would of course be necessary to carefully observe a lot of generations of some species with a short lifespan. In practice that is rarely possible unless you are a qualified technician with proper equipment working with insects or bacteria.

Even so, your denial is a bit puzzling. Do you think the body of knowledge about speciation and the lucrative techniques that develop from that (including artificial speciation) do not exist, are somehow bluffs or lies, or what?

 

[Sapiens]

Sorry, that has never been observed. There is diversity of species. We can observe that. But evolution of species into other species has never been observed.

Species is a recent term. The Bible never uses the word species. The Word of God speaks of "kinds" of creatures. And no kind of creature has ever been observed changing into another kind of creature. If you think it has, show your evidence.

Sorry but there are many observed examples of allopatric speciation. Here is an example:

The Isthmus of Panama, a tiny strip of land joining North and South America, is fairly young in geological terms: it's only three million years old. Before the isthmus existed, there was just ocean in that area, and that ocean included fifteen species of snapping shrimp.

Snapping shrimp

Today, there are fifteen species of shrimp on one side of the isthmus - and fifteen different species on the other side, which we call their sister species.

In a single population of shrimp (before the isthmus), a mutation that arose in one individual could eventually spread through the whole population as the shrimp mated with each other. But once there is a barrier splitting the population in half, a new mutation can only spread through half the population. That's why a lack of interbreeding means the two populations evolve separately.

There can also be slightly different factors for survival in the different areas: maybe the temperature or currents are different on each side; maybe the food sources are different. This can also help the populations diverge, or become different, from each other.
(thanks to education-portal.com)

 

[McBell]

Please see post 2483

Perhaps you did not understand the question?
The post you referred to did not in any way define "kind" in a meaningful and or useful way.

 

[shawn001]

I saw a pear and an apple in the same bowl so the pear must have evolved from an apple. I beleive the association of being in the same bowl is not a link.

"I saw a pear and an apple in the same bowl so the pear must have evolved from an apple."



Pear genome provides new insight into breeding improvement and evolutionary trace analysis

"Through comparative genomics and evolution analysis, researchers found pear, apple and strawberry shared an ancient whole-genome duplication (WGD) event that took place about 140 million years ago. About 30~45 million years ago, pear and apple shared a recent WGD event. After the two WGD events, pear and apple diverged from each other about 5.4~21.5 million years ago. Moreover, researchers inferred that the nine ancestral chromosomes formerly reported in apple, are not only the origin of the Pyreae tribe, but also serve as the ancestors of the whole Rosaceae family.

Read more at: Pear genome provides new insight into breeding improvement and evolutionary trace analysis

 

[shawn001]

Sorry but there are many observed examples of allopatric speciation. Here is an example:

The Isthmus of Panama, a tiny strip of land joining North and South America, is fairly young in geological terms: it's only three million years old. Before the isthmus existed, there was just ocean in that area, and that ocean included fifteen species of snapping shrimp.

Snapping shrimp

Today, there are fifteen species of shrimp on one side of the isthmus - and fifteen different species on the other side, which we call their sister species.

In a single population of shrimp (before the isthmus), a mutation that arose in one individual could eventually spread through the whole population as the shrimp mated with each other. But once there is a barrier splitting the population in half, a new mutation can only spread through half the population. That's why a lack of interbreeding means the two populations evolve separately.

There can also be slightly different factors for survival in the different areas: maybe the temperature or currents are different on each side; maybe the food sources are different. This can also help the populations diverge, or become different, from each other.
(thanks to education-portal.com)

Cichlid fish genome helps tell story of adaptive evolution

Roughly 40 million years ago, a handful of species of fish from the Nile River went into three lakes in Africa and experienced an unusual flurry of evolution. In one of these lakes as many as 500 new species emerged in fewer than 100,000 years.


Cichlid fish genome helps tell story of adaptive evolution

 

[Sapiens]

Cichlid fish genome helps tell story of adaptive evolution

Roughly 40 million years ago, a handful of species of fish from the Nile River went into three lakes in Africa and experienced an unusual flurry of evolution. In one of these lakes as many as 500 new species emerged in fewer than 100,000 years.


Cichlid fish genome helps tell story of adaptive evolution

I had the pleasure of doing some of the earliest underwater field work on the evolution and ecology of the Midas Cichlid in Nicaragua with Drs. Barlow and McCay.

 

[shawn001]

You know, I have no idea why I continue down this road so far, as I so often do. It was my intention to say only that I don't believe that you and many others who claim that evolution is true have actually observed evidence showing that it is true. To me, evolution makes a bit of sense, but I have not observed it taking place, neither have I confirmed that apes have DNA that is near 98% similar to that of human beings. It could be true for all I know. But I honestly don't know that as a matter of fact. I also believe that most people who believe evolution is true have not seen that evidence either. And I believe that most people making the claim that evolution is true are actually just taking someone's word for it. And I personally see no good reason to take anyone's word for anything at all.

The Bible does not contradict the Bible, or at least, I don't see any contradiction. So forgive me for suggesting that I believe that evolution is not true. I have no idea if it is true. It very well could be, and to tell you the honest truth, I really don't care if it is true. In fact, it seems to me that the Book of Genesis in the Bible might even suggest that evolution is true. The Bible tells us that all creatures were brought forth either from the waters, or from the earth. And so that is what I believe. How that happened, I really don't know. It seems to me that God had something to do with it, as God had said, "Let the earth bring forth grass...", " Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life", and "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind". Upon God's will, the earth and the waters brought forth. Furthermore, we notice that God said that all creatures that are brought forth are brought forth after their own kind. And indeed that is true. We don't see different species of animals bringing forth other kinds of creatures. And so it seems the Bible is true, whether or not evolution is true.

The theory of evolution has billions of facts to support it and has been attacked for hundreds of years and the case for it still gets stronger with new technology, new evidence and understanding. It is also one of the strongest theories in all of science, it is BOTH a FACT and a Scientific theory. There is also an amazing beauty and complexity to it all.

"“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”
― Richard P. Feynman




You might find this interesting, you have body hair yes?

Head-scratching puzzle: What lice have to say about human evolution

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/health/08iht-lice.4842725.html?_r=0

 

[shawn001]

I had the pleasure of doing some of the earliest underwater field work on the evolution and ecology of the Midas Cichlid in Nicaragua with Drs. Barlow and McCay.

Very cool! Your occupation in biology or a related field?

 

[shawn001]

I beleive the correct view is that evoltion is theory based on facts but not fact based on a theory.

LOL on that one sorry.


"
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


There have also been five big mass extintion events on earth, the dinousaurs being one, but there were others, including the

"Permian mass extinction 248 million years ago
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived."

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

Your beliefs don't change the facts. You don't seem to undertand science, the history and evolution of the solar system and earth and the evolution of life on Earth. That is a shame really.

 

[HiEv]

You know, I have no idea why I continue down this road so far, as I so often do.

Well, I don't know about you, but I do it because I enjoy learning new things and helping others learn new things as well.

Even if I don't end up agreeing with the person, I often learn many new things in the process, and learning is one of the great joys in my life.

It was my intention to say only that I don't believe that you and many others who claim that evolution is true have actually observed evidence showing that it is true.

Well, as I've pointed out, part of the problem is that you don't understand what we mean by the word "evolution". You have in your head that it means things like bacteria becoming not-bacteria, but that's like saying gravity is only about making black holes, and missing all of the other products of gravity, and therefore dismissing all of gravity because you've never seen a black hole.

Evolution also includes little changes within a species that happen over generations. Something doesn't have to become a whole new species for evolution to occur. So you're confusing speciation (or worse, in the case of bacteria, because there are many different species of bacteria) for evolution, but speciation is merely a tiny subset within the varied superset of evolution.

To me, evolution makes a bit of sense, but I have not observed it taking place,

You didn't observe God creating the universe either, but you believe that, right? So obviously observing something isn't your only criteria for believing something. So why apply one high standard of evidence to things you don't want to believe, and a completely different low standard to things you do want to believe? Shouldn't you apply the same standard to all claims and then let the chips fall where they may if you want the most accurate picture of reality?

In any case, if you haven't observed the evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, then you either haven't been looking or didn't recognize it when you saw it. I'm betting on the latter.

neither have I confirmed that apes have DNA that is near 98% similar to that of human beings.

Actually, humans are apes.

See for yourself. Wikipedia: Ape

See? Really easy to confirm if you just spend a few seconds looking at the definitions of words.

It could be true for all I know. But I honestly don't know that as a matter of fact. I also believe that most people who believe evolution is true have not seen that evidence either.

Well, as I've just demonstrated, you'd be wrong.

The problem is, you've been fed a lot of misinformation about the fact of evolution, and that can make it hard for you to recognize how simple it is to verify. It really is fascinating to learn about if you can find a decent scientific source because the theory of evolution explains so much of how life ended up as it did.

(To clarify: the fact of evolution is what I've been discussing so far: the change in the frequency of traits that happens over generations. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is the explanation for why those changes occur and what allows you to make some predictions about how evolution would likely go in various situations. Be careful not to think that the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are the same thing; the latter explains the implications of the former.)

And I believe that most people making the claim that evolution is true are actually just taking someone's word for it.

Well, you'd be wrong.

And I personally see no good reason to take anyone's word for anything at all.

On this I'd say that we totally agree, however, in the very next paragraph you write you totally contradict yourself when you take the word of the authors of the Bible without question or evidence.

The Bible does not contradict the Bible, or at least, I don't see any contradiction.

It's really easy to not find things when you don't actually look for them. ;-)

Here is a PDF with 439 Biblical contradictions.

A few simple examples:

Genesis 1:11-13 has plants form on day 3, and then 1:27&31 has man created on day 6. That's contradicted by Genesis 2:4-9, which has man created first, and then plants created after man.

"1 Samuel and 2 Samuel give conflicting accounts of Saul's death. In the former, Saul returned to face his enemies, and the Israelites were duly defeated. To escape torture, Saul then asked his armor bearer to kill him, but was forced to commit suicide by falling on his sword when the armor bearer refused. In 2 Samuel, Saul asks not his armor bearer but an Amalekite to deliver the coup de grace, or so the Amalekites boasts to David, hoping to gain a reward. Infuriated, David orders the Amalekite to be put to death as punishment for killing the anointed king." (Source: Wikipedia - Saul)

Matthew 1:6-16 gives a different genealogy of Joseph than Luke 3:23-31, starting with the former going from King David down Solomon's branch while the latter goes from King David down Nathan's branch.

Judas also dies in two completely different ways. In Matthew 27:5 Judas throws away his 30 pieces of silver in the temple and hangs himself. However, in Acts 1:18 Judas buys a plot of land with that silver, where he promptly falls down and explodes in a burst of gore. (No, I'm not kidding. Read it for yourself.)

That's just to name a few internal contradictions. (I'm not even getting into the contradictions with science.)

So forgive me for suggesting that I believe that evolution is not true. I have no idea if it is true. It very well could be, and to tell you the honest truth, I really don't care if it is true.

Well, that's a shame. Personally, I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. This is because I understand that having the most accurate picture of the world around me helps me make the best choices for myself and everyone around me, and generally makes the world a better place.

I know not everyone shares this point of view, but I can't help but wish more people did.

The Bible tells us that all creatures were brought forth either from the waters, or from the earth. And so that is what I believe.

Ah, and to think, just one paragraph earlier you had shown such wisdom when you said, "And I personally see no good reason to take anyone's word for anything at all."

Don't just take someone's word for it. That's what you're doing when you believe whatever the Bible says. Go! Investigate! Learn new things!!!

It's not as hard as you seem to think it is.

We don't see different species of animals bringing forth other kinds of creatures.

I'm not sure what you mean by "kinds", but by any reasonable definition of the term, you're simply unaware of the fact that we do indeed see this happen, and therefore are wrong in your assertion.

I'd recommend you learn more about evolution before you go around pronouncing what we have and haven't found with such certainty. Learning new things is fun.

 

[Sapiens]

Very cool! Your occupation in biology or a related field?

That was as an undergrad at Cal where I majored in Zoology and was taught by people like the Wake(s), Stebbins, Barlow, Patton, Dawkins, Caldwell, Clemens, Savage, etc., and also had the chance to work with some grad students who later made good like McKay and Bakker (though he was at Yale at the time). My career was as a Biological Oceanographer. I am now retired to Hawaii.

 

[shawn001]

Very cool Sapiens! I am into oceanography. I think Jacques Cousteau's TV programs had something to do with that for me, he was awesome.

The new mariana trench finds are pretty amazing..

 

[Sapiens]

Sorry, that has never been observed. There is diversity of species. We can observe that. But evolution of species into other species has never been observed.

Species is a recent term. The Bible never uses the word species. The Word of God speaks of "kinds" of creatures. And no kind of creature has ever been observed changing into another kind of creature. If you think it has, show your evidence.

Species is a recent term, it is a recent concept, developed in large part, to solve the problems inherent in, and shortcoming of, the antique and antiquated term of "kind."

There are lots of things that have never been observed, speciation is one of them, invisible deities are another. How is it that you can swallow the whole deity thing, without observing it, without blinking an eye and yet have trouble with speciation above the species level simple because it takes more than a many human lifetimes and is thus not directly observable? Is that any reason to disbelieve say, Neptune or Pluto? You've never seen them ... do you believe that they orbit the sun? No one has ever seen them complete an orbit, you know.

You know, I have no idea why I continue down this road so far, as I so often do. It was my intention to say only that I don't believe that you and many others who claim that evolution is true have actually observed evidence showing that it is true.

I have spent a lifetime observing actual evidence of evolution, so have you, you just don't want to admit it because it conflicts with some other agenda you have running.

To me, evolution makes a bit of sense, but I have not observed it taking place, neither have I confirmed that apes have DNA that is near 98% similar to that of human beings. It could be true for all I know.

It makes a LOT of sense. I have observed it taking place, you can too, if you want to. The closest ape DNA is in the 90% similarlity to human.

But I honestly don't know that as a matter of fact. I also believe that most people who believe evolution is true have not seen that evidence either.

I have!

And I believe that most people making the claim that evolution is true are actually just taking someone's word for it. And I personally see no good reason to take anyone's word for anything at all.

Then call me a liar and believe in invisible deities for which there is no evidence of any sort. It's a free country, be as stupid as you want, there is no law against it.

The Bible does not contradict the Bible, or at least, I don't see any contradiction.

There are many, many contradictions, start with the two different creation stories in Genesis.

So forgive me for suggesting that I believe that evolution is not true. I have no idea if it is true. It very well could be, and to tell you the honest truth, I really don't care if it is true. In fact, it seems to me that the Book of Genesis in the Bible might even suggest that evolution is true. The Bible tells us that all creatures were brought forth either from the waters, or from the earth. And so that is what I believe. How that happened, I really don't know. It seems to me that God had something to do with it, as God had said, "Let the earth bring forth grass...", " Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life", and "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind". Upon God's will, the earth and the waters brought forth. Furthermore, we notice that God said that all creatures that are brought forth are brought forth after their own kind. And indeed that is true. We don't see different species of animals bringing forth other kinds of creatures. And so it seems the Bible is true, whether or not evolution is true.

If you need a bible to keep you warm, that's your trip, but the world in much older than 6,000 years and you are just another ape descendent from a long line of apes.

 

[shawn001]

Tons of evolutionary evidence to us and the apes.


EPISODE THREE
Your Inner Monkey
In the final episode of the series, "Your Inner Monkey," Shubin delves into our primate past. He travels from the badlands of Ethiopia, where the famous hominid skeletons "Lucy" and "Ardi" were found, to a forest canopy in Florida, home to modern primates. En route, he explains how many aspects of our form and function evolved. We learn that a genetic mutation in our primate ancestors conferred humans' ability to see in color — but it was an advantage that led to a decline in our sense of smell. The shape of our hands came from tree-dwelling ancestors for whom long fingers made it easier to reach fruit at the tips of fine branches. Shubin concludes by tracing the evolution of the human brain — from a tiny swelling on the nerve cord of a wormlike creature, to the three-part architecture of a shark's brain and the complex brain of primates. As Shubin observes, "Inside every organ, gene and cell in our body lie deep connections with the rest of life on our planet."

Your Inner Fish | PBS

 

[Sapiens]

I beleive the correct view is that evoltion is theory based on facts but not fact based on a theory.

That's just so much foolishness. You need to understand that in science there are no "facts" and theories represent the concepts what we have the most surety of. While that is a cute turn of phrase, once you parse it you see that it is horse puckey.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Sorry, that has never been observed. There is diversity of species. We can observe that. But evolution of species into other species has never been observed.

Species is a recent term. The Bible never uses the word species. The Word of God speaks of "kinds" of creatures. And no kind of creature has ever been observed changing into another kind of creature. If you think it has, show your evidence.

From Teosinte to Corn....

Corn is a man-made evolutionary process which, aside from making delicious food, shows how evolution works. It can/was/is observed and observable. You can go into to your backyard right now and start working on a little project to make evolution (ie science) happen, and you can observe the whole thing. It only takes a couple of generations.

Teosinte is a wheat-like grass. Corn is...well, it's corn.

After you've steamed a big pot of corn on the cob, would you pull back the lid and say "Oh, man! Look at all that delicious grass!!" ?

No - you would not - because vegetables aren't grasses. They are no longer "after their own kind" yet they are both very obviously real.