Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Sapiens]

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.

It only required changing one set of tags that was accidentally indicating that something I wrote was a quote from you. Not very hard to figure out. Fixed now.

 

[Sapiens]

You need to take that post up with Sapiens, not me.

It's been fixed, wouldn't want to credit him with something sensible now (that I actually wrote), would we?

 

[Sapiens]

If I am wrong, then my experience of God should be considered evidence by you.

Your idiosyncratic observations are not evidence.

 

[shawn001]

Belief in God and His Son Jesus isn't polytheism.
What make you say so.
My faith does not believe in a triune god.
There is God.
There is Jesus born to Mary via actions of the holy spirit.
Jesus isn't a God, he was godlike.
The h.s. is the was God does things.
I have an electric tool.
It runs on electricty which I can't see, I operate the tool.
The tool, the power it runs on, the person working with the tool are all different but working
for the same result.

These are your beliefs.

You can see electricity.

 

[HiEv]

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

I stated quite a few facts in my reply to you, some even had citations. You appear to have utterly ignored them.

Care to respond to my points?

 

[Muffled]

But you avoided my question. Why are you so ready to believe that humans did exist with no evidence what so ever but harshly avoid evolution even though it has mountains of evidence? Is it simply personal bias?

Exactly. But never have they ever simply said "nope. Evolution is wrong." or "well this wasn't right at all lets go back to the drawing board".

Its all within the context of further understanding of the same concept we already know to be true.

I believe no evidence does not equate to mountains of evidence. Sure I have a bias based on what God says but it is no worse than having a bias based on science. The fact still remains that one speculation is as good as another. Without evidence it can only be speculation.

I don't think you understand the concept of being wrong about something because there is a lack of evidence. There is no evidence so the possibility is that the speculation about evolution can be wrong.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

Point being, you can observe speciation and evolution regardless of whether or not you believe in it. It is factual evidence.

Deciding one day to accept a certain religious ideology and then rationalizing everything that happens under the umbrella of that ideology is not evidence - it's just subjective reasoning and self-affirming bias.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I believe no evidence does not equate to mountains of evidence.

Without evidence it can only be speculation.

By your own reasoning then, your entire belief system and your faith is merely speculation?

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

He is not showing you one animal changing into another "kind" of animal.

He is showing you yet another piece of evidence that shows how evolution is factual. Allopatric speciation is speciation caused by the divide of geological boundaries. You can take one population of something, one family, slit it in half with a barrier (in this case the land bridge which separated the shrimp populations) and over a short amount of time the shrimp on either side of the barrier became different from one another. They're no longer the same "family" but two distinct "families". Increase populations and increase the distances between them, and, as Sapiens example showed, there were 15 "families". They're no longer the same shrimp.

Just like the Galapagos finches, whose separation was water and distance, they adapted to their respective environments over time, changing their phenotypes to be better serve their surroundings. It all works the same way. It's all observable science. Predictable and testable.

This is the simplest, most basic, introductory part of evolutionary science. It is not some fabricated conspiracy against theology. It is as factual as one plus one equaling two.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would you not say that the shrimp on the right side of the island had a common ancestor with the shrimp on the left - even though they were no longer part of the same group? You'd have to, right?

Would you not say that chihuahuas share a common ancestor with the gray wolf, even though those two animals are very different? Obviously, right?

Would you not say that whales shares a common ancestor with dolphins? They're certainly not the same thing, but they're related, aren't they?

Would you not say that white skin on humans was a geographic adaptation to their environment and that white-skinned people share a common ancestor with dark-skinned people? Well obviously, right?

So why would you not say that humans, which you admit share an incredible amount of similarities with chimpanzees, don't share a common ancestor with those chimpanzees?

How did these similar traits get passed down?

You share traits of your mother and father because, well they're your mom and dad, right? That's how biology works. Your children will share traits of both you and your wife, and they'll also have some traits of your parents and of her parents. Do you explain that by saying, "Well, I don't know how it works. I've never observed it..." Or would you understand those things to be true because you have a general understanding of how babies are made? Now imagine if you devoted your entire life to genetically studying the similarities between you and your parents - or you and your grandparents, or you and your great grand parents. That's what geneticists do. They study genetic lineage as far back as you could imagine.

We all share traits with the other great apes because we all share a common ancestor - we are all part of the same family. We all share these things because of simple biology. And simple biology is evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe no evidence does not equate to mountains of evidence. Sure I have a bias based on what God says but it is no worse than having a bias based on science. The fact still remains that one speculation is as good as another. Without evidence it can only be speculation.

I don't think you understand the concept of being wrong about something because there is a lack of evidence. There is no evidence so the possibility is that the speculation about evolution can be wrong.

Uh... why are you lying?

 

[Muffled]

More like there is no clear-cut distinction, and that has been known for decades.

The "missing link" is wishful thinking. And outdated wishful thinking at that. It implies a lack of evidence that has not existed for perhaps over a century now.[/QUOTE]
Really! Wishful thinking! what planet do you come from. I have several in my own genealogy. My forefather came to this country about 1660 but no-one has been able to find his father. I suspect by now there may be genetic links to other people with the same last name but there is no historical record found yet. I have an Irish ancestor that some have speculated about his parents coming from Northern Ireland even though he was born in Dublin but I have seen no evidence yet. I have French Canadien ancestors that I can't connect up to thier parents.

So then you can direct me to a scentific paper showing a direct genetic link between father and child that indicates evolution from crawling to walking on two feet? Or is there no clear distinction between the two?

 

[Muffled]

Then your beliefs are wrong.

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science." (wiki)

That being said, might I recommend to you: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

Science does not operate on the basis of speculation (at least as you use the word) and hominid evolution is far from mere speculation. Assuming you read the wiki entry on Scientific evidence that I provided, In now recommend to you the wiki on: Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .


Yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely that humans would have, "pre-existed" yet all the evidence, as you now see, fossil, biochemical, genetic, etc. point to evolution of modern man through a series of common ancestors shared with the other apes who are currently extant.

Yes, science keeps finding out new things, but nothing that has been found contradicts evolution of modern man through a series of common ancestors shared with the other apes who are currently extant. Quite the opposite, everything that is found further confirms that conclusion, the only think that gets changed is the exact position of fossil finds in the family tree.

I beleive this is an admittance that it is speculation.

 

[Muffled]

Uh... why are you lying?

Please excuse me if you thought that I was misrepresenting something but I do have my beliefs and hope that you will treat them with the same respect that I treat yours. I certainly don't believe that you are trying to deceive anyone and I know yoou have different views and I beleive you are honest about them.

 

[Sapiens]

I beleive this is an admittance that it is speculation.

You have some definite problems with your beliefs or you have no comprehension as to what "speculation" is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please excuse me if you thought that I was misrepresenting something but I do have my beliefs and hope that you will treat them with the same respect that I treat yours. I certainly don't believe that you are trying to deceive anyone and I know yoou have different views and I beleive you are honest about them.

That is why I ask: why are you lying?

Because frankly, you are lying and I expect better from you.

Perhaps you have made a point of avoiding learning better, but at this point that is no excuse.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Danger of Science Denial

This seems appropriate.

 

[Sonofason]

I am able to comprehend that the broad generic definition of evidence you have to cling to in order to protect your faith is subjective.

Just because I have a higher standard of evidence than you do does not make your evidence not evidence.
It's just that with my standards higher than yours, I want something more concrete than your beliefs.

That's good, now what concrete evidence have you observed that species are capable of evolving into other species. When did you ever see that happening?

 

[Sonofason]

We didn't see the sun form, but we know how it happened. Now we see other solar systems forming as well.

This is macroevolution basically.


Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World | Learn Science at Scitable

Lots of interesting labels on that site, but I'm sorry to inform you there was no evidence. Try once more.

 

[outhouse]

The fact still remains that one speculation is as good as another

Except evolution Is not based on speculation.

Without evidence it can only be speculation

Evolution Is based on many facts in support. Some directly observed facts.

I believe no evidence does not equate to mountains of evidence.

No brother, there is a literal mountain of evidence.


Evolution has been fact for quite a while, only theist denounce this most of which is based on severe ignorance.

 

[McBell]

That's good, now what concrete evidence have you observed that species are capable of evolving into other species. When did you ever see that happening?

Do you really want to set the standard at what has been observed by the individual?
Like your creation, for instance?

Your call.

I have read many a book and many a study that indicates evolution is true.

You claim that one species cannot evolve into another, right?

Or are you content hiding behind the ever changing "Kind"?