Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Sonofason]

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?

No, I am saying that I do not know if any of the claims about evolution are true. I am not going to start believing in something without evidence. It's how I roll.

 

[Sonofason]

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)

Seems to me like there are 15 species of shrimp on one side and 15 species of shrimp on the other side. So what your saying is that after millions of years of evolution, shrimp are still shrimp. Very interesting.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

That is truly amazing. I think you're right.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

Even if this is true, which it is not but I doubt anyone will ever convince you otherwise, I would still put humans and chimpanzee's in the same "kind".

 

[Sonofason]

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.

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

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.

I can't make any sense of this. You've got quotes here of things I never said. Fix the problems in your response, and I will try to address your failures.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

Indeed, and you can accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, and experience God.

 

[Sonofason]

Even if this is true, which it is not but I doubt anyone will ever convince you otherwise, I would still put humans and chimpanzee's in the same "kind".

You are free to clump humans and chimps into the same kind. I refuse to be so presumptuous. I'll continue to accept the facts as I see them.

 

[McBell]

I'll continue to accept the facts as I see them.

So when are you going to start?

 

[Midnight Rain]

You are free to clump humans and chimps into the same kind. I refuse to be so presumptuous. I'll continue to accept the facts as I see them.

So the similarities of aposable thumbs, behavior, facial structure, usage of facial features, almost identical DNA, the fact that the human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA are more closely linked than that of Tigers and house cats that are still of the same "kind"? I personally find it more presumptuous to say that humans are not obviously in that same "kind".

 

[McBell]

I can't make any sense of this. You've got quotes here of things I never said. Fix the problems in your response, and I will try to address your failures.

Careful.
Your yellow streak is showing.

 

[Sonofason]

So when are you going to start?

Well, so far, you haven't stated any facts.

 

[Sonofason]

So the similarities of aposable thumbs, behavior, facial structure, usage of facial features, almost identical DNA, the fact that the human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA are more closely linked than that of Tigers and house cats that are still of the same "kind"? I personally find it more presumptuous to say that humans are not obviously in that same "kind".

I don't intend to say we are and I don't intend to say we are not. There are indeed many similarities. I recognize many of those similarities. I'm content with that, and the fact that God's Word remains standing in all this, which every way it goes.

 

[Sonofason]

Careful.
Your yellow streak is showing.

If you're going to quote me, do it right.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I am saying that I do not know if any of the claims about evolution are true. I am not going to start believing in something without evidence. It's how I roll.

How much evidence is evidence? It is not like there is little.

 

[McBell]

Well, so far, you haven't stated any facts.

Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring that which you dislike does not make them go away.

 

[Sonofason]

How much evidence is evidence? It is not like there is little.

Evidence to you may not be evidence to me.
Evidence to me is something that convinces me of something.

evidence - something which shows that something else exists or is true.
Evidence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So you might see something which shows you that something else exists or is true, and therefore consider that to be evidence. But if I am not convinced by that which has convinced you, I will not consider that to be evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring that which you dislike does not make them go away.

You're absolutely right.

 

[McBell]

If you're going to quote me, do it right.

Now your desperation is starting to show...

 

[McBell]

Evidence to you may not be evidence to me.
Evidence to me is something that convinces me of something.

evidence - something which shows that something else exists or is true.
Evidence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So you might see something which shows you that something else exists or is true, and therefore consider that to be evidence. But if I am not convinced by that which has convinced you, I will not consider that to be evidence.

I agree.
However I do find it rather interesting of you to keep asking for something you will never see.

 

[McBell]

You're absolutely right.

But you are going to continue with the blatant lies, right?