Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Sapiens]

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"?

He'd rather believe in an invisible, supernatural, omnipotent being than in a natural process that occurs too slowly for him to observe it directly. Makes a lot of sense, no?

 

[McBell]

He'd rather believe in an invisible, supernatural, omnipotent being than in a natural process that occurs too slowly for him to observe it directly. Makes a lot of sense, no?

He does not seem to realize that he is painting himself into a corner.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

Evolution has mountains and mountains of evidence. The assertion that it doesn't is simply a lie that doesn't deserve a fair response especially after evidence has been given to you in this very thread.

I think you don't understand what qualifies as evidence and you have shown to be detrimentally unqualified at determining what is likely or factual.

 

[Muffled]

Evolution has mountains and mountains of evidence. The assertion that it doesn't is simply a lie that doesn't deserve a fair response especially after evidence has been given to you in this very thread.

I think you don't understand what qualifies as evidence and you have shown to be detrimentally unqualified at determining what is likely or factual.

No doubt there is mountains of evidence that there might have been an evolution. I wouldn't call it mountains of evidence of evolution.

For instance there is a person with a similar surname to mine in Wales in 1000AD but I have no linking facts to him. I could be related but there is also another explanation that the surname developed separately in Wales sort of like Smith which could be given to anyone working as a blacksmith but not all blacksmiths were related.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I don't believe one can observe it unless one time travels and does scientific tests.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe what you mean is that you believe I am lying. Perhaps it would help if you specified what you believe is a lie.

I don't believe I understand why you would say this. I am always learrning and RF has taught me that I don't know anything but only hold beliefs.

 

[Sonofason]

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"?

I too have read many books which indicate that the evolution of species does in fact occur. I certainly do not claim that one species cannot evolve into another. The fact is, I have not observed any species evolving into another species. That is not to say that I believe an evolution of species does not take place. It means that I am not certain that it does take place. Perhaps at the root of my problem with evolution is that scientists have set up a classification system which very narrowly defines what each particular species is, which on the one hand I believe is a very good system for precisely distinguishing one creature from another according to specific physical characteristics and traits, but seemingly fails in my opinion because a species does not truly evolve into another species over time. A species does not change into another species over time. It is the characteristics and traits of a species that changes. Thus, according to the present classification system, if a species were to undergo significant changes over time, those changes would indicate that a new species has come into existence. But the fact is that evolution does not involve a changing of one species into another species. It is still the same species, but the characteristics of that species changes over time.

The Bible fully supports the concept that the evolution of species does take place. There are no contradictions between the Bible and accurate science.

 

[Sonofason]

He'd rather believe in an invisible, supernatural, omnipotent being than in a natural process that occurs too slowly for him to observe it directly. Makes a lot of sense, no?

It is certainly not an either or question. God exists, and evolution might be true.

 

[Sonofason]

He does not seem to realize that he is painting himself into a corner.

You are the only artist here.

 

[McBell]

You are the only artist here.

ah, the predicted denial.

 

[outhouse]

I don't believe one can observe it

Well that is to bad, because it has factually been observed.

 

[HiEv]

I too have read many books which indicate that the evolution of species does in fact occur. I certainly do not claim that one species cannot evolve into another. The fact is, I have not observed any species evolving into another species. That is not to say that I believe an evolution of species does not take place. It means that I am not certain that it does take place.

What do you mean by "certain"?

Few things are 100% certain (generally only by definition), but we can have reasonable certainty about the theory of evolution, because nothing else better explains or predicts all of the relevant evidence and does not contradict that evidence.

Perhaps at the root of my problem with evolution is that scientists have set up a classification system which very narrowly defines what each particular species is,

This isn't exactly accurate. The classification system is to help us understand the relationship between individual groups of lifeforms. Taxonomists don't "define" what a species is, the characteristics of the lifeforms are what define what species they are. The name for some species have changed as scientists discovered that the species was actually related to a different group than was originally thought.

Calling something a "species" is merely a label given by humans to help categorize what they've found into groups and sub-groups using a method which is as unbiased as possible. As one species evolves into another there is no hard line between one and the other. It's very fuzzy and gradual, and it's actually somewhat arbitrary where they are grouped, often based on what it looked like when the original fossils were found or some similar point in the history of that branch of its evolution.

which on the one hand I believe is a very good system for precisely distinguishing one creature from another according to specific physical characteristics and traits, but seemingly fails in my opinion because a species does not truly evolve into another species over time.

"Truly evolve"? I think you misunderstand evolution here.

A species does not change into another species over time. It is the characteristics and traits of a species that changes.

The frequency of characteristics and traits changing in a species over time is exactly what evolution is. If each generation gets a tiny bit more different from some particular generation in the past over many generations, then after a while the current generation will be different enough to be described as a different species from that other particular generation. That's a perfect example of something "truly evolving".

What you're describing is how evolution says things work, you just don't seem to understand that this is indeed true evolution.

Thus, according to the present classification system, if a species were to undergo significant changes over time, those changes would indicate that a new species has come into existence.

And you're essentially correct, though you say "come into existence" as though something happened suddenly with some clear demarcation, when it's actually gradual, fuzzy, and, to a certain degree, arbitrary.

But the fact is that evolution does not involve a changing of one species into another species. It is still the same species, but the characteristics of that species changes over time.

If the species now has many consistently different characteristics from the much earlier species, how is it "still the same species"?!? It may have many of the same or similar characteristics to its distant ancestor species, but once enough changes have accumulated over many generations, calling that much different species "the same species" as its distant ancestors is just silly.

If you have a hammer, and the head of the hammer breaks, so you replace the head of the hammer, then the handle breaks, and you replace the handle, is that "the same hammer" to you too? They are related, but not the same.

The Bible fully supports the concept that the evolution of species does take place. There are no contradictions between the Bible and accurate science.

LOL. OK, that's a bridge too far. "No contradictions," eh? Galileo was persecuted because he showed using science that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, which contradicts the Bible. Claiming that a book which claims that the world was created in six days, life appeared fully formed, with trees existing before the sun, and man being formed from clay and woman coming from his rib (to name just a few examples) doesn't contradict actual science requires some rather deep levels of denial. Heck, the Bible even contradicts itself on the order that life appeared. Genesis 1:20-23 says that fish and birds were created on day 5, then other animals and finally man on day 6 in Genesis 1:24-31. On the other hand, Genesis 2:4-7 has man created first, then all other animals created next as helpers for man in Genesis 2:18-20.

If the Bible can't consistently say whether man came first or last among animals which were supposedly created by God, I have guess that you never even bothered to test your claim that, "There are no contradictions between the Bible and accurate science," you simply believed it because you wanted it to be true.

Care to rethink that claim?

 

[Sapiens]

It is certainly not an either or question. God exists, and evolution might be true.

Based on the evidence, evolution is true ... a god may, or may not exist.

 

[outhouse]

... a god may, or may not exist

\

I would argue that all day long.

 

[Sonofason]

ah, the predicted denial.

Ah, an artist and fortune teller - how wonderful.

 

[Sonofason]

What do you mean by "certain"?

Few things are 100% certain (generally only by definition), but we can have reasonable certainty about the theory of evolution, because nothing else better explains or predicts all of the relevant evidence and does not contradict that evidence.



This isn't exactly accurate. The classification system is to help us understand the relationship between individual groups of lifeforms. Taxonomists don't "define" what a species is, the characteristics of the lifeforms are what define what species they are. The name for some species have changed as scientists discovered that the species was actually related to a different group than was originally thought.

Calling something a "species" is merely a label given by humans to help categorize what they've found into groups and sub-groups using a method which is as unbiased as possible. As one species evolves into another there is no hard line between one and the other. It's very fuzzy and gradual, and it's actually somewhat arbitrary where they are grouped, often based on what it looked like when the original fossils were found or some similar point in the history of that branch of its evolution.



"Truly evolve"? I think you misunderstand evolution here.



The frequency of characteristics and traits changing in a species over time is exactly what evolution is. If each generation gets a tiny bit more different from some particular generation in the past over many generations, then after a while the current generation will be different enough to be described as a different species from that other particular generation. That's a perfect example of something "truly evolving".

What you're describing is how evolution says things work, you just don't seem to understand that this is indeed true evolution.



And you're essentially correct, though you say "come into existence" as though something happened suddenly with some clear demarcation, when it's actually gradual, fuzzy, and, to a certain degree, arbitrary.



If the species now has many consistently different characteristics from the much earlier species, how is it "still the same species"?!? It may have many of the same or similar characteristics to its distant ancestor species, but once enough changes have accumulated over many generations, calling that much different species "the same species" as its distant ancestors is just silly.

If you have a hammer, and the head of the hammer breaks, so you replace the head of the hammer, then the handle breaks, and you replace the handle, is that "the same hammer" to you too? They are related, but not the same.



LOL. OK, that's a bridge too far. "No contradictions," eh? Galileo was persecuted because he showed using science that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, which contradicts the Bible. Claiming that a book which claims that the world was created in six days, life appeared fully formed, with trees existing before the sun, and man being formed from clay and woman coming from his rib (to name just a few examples) doesn't contradict actual science requires some rather deep levels of denial. Heck, the Bible even contradicts itself on the order that life appeared. Genesis 1:20-23 says that fish and birds were created on day 5, then other animals and finally man on day 6 in Genesis 1:24-31. On the other hand, Genesis 2:4-7 has man created first, then all other animals created next as helpers for man in Genesis 2:18-20.

If the Bible can't consistently say whether man came first or last among animals which were supposedly created by God, I have guess that you never even bothered to test your claim that, "There are no contradictions between the Bible and accurate science," you simply believed it because you wanted it to be true.

Care to rethink that claim?

I'm sorry that you find the Bible impossible to understand. Maybe one day I will attempt to explain it to you.

 

[Sapiens]

I too have read many books which indicate that the evolution of species does in fact occur. I certainly do not claim that one species cannot evolve into another. The fact is, I have not observed any species evolving into another species.

Do you disbelieve everything that you've not observed?

That is not to say that I believe an evolution of species does not take place. It means that I am not certain that it does take place.

More often a species (bad word, but we'll use it for now) evolves into two species that do not belong to the same breeding population.

Perhaps at the root of my problem with evolution is that scientists have set up a classification system which very narrowly defines what each particular species is, which on the one hand I believe is a very good system for precisely distinguishing one creature from another according to specific physical characteristics and traits, but seemingly fails in my opinion because a species does not truly evolve into another species over time.

It is a lousy system, really a holdover of the biblical concept of kinds. It is falling into disrepute and will be soon gone.

A species does not change into another species over time. It is the characteristics and traits of a species that changes.

It does both, at the same time.

Thus, according to the present classification system, if a species were to undergo significant changes over time, those changes would indicate that a new species has come into existence. But the fact is that evolution does not involve a changing of one species into another species. It is still the same species, but the characteristics of that species changes over time.

You understand half the story.

The Bible fully supports the concept that the evolution of species does take place. There are no contradictions between the Bible and accurate science.

But you don't understand what accurate science is, so how can you say that?

 

[Sonofason]

Do you disbelieve everything that you've not observed?

Actually, I believe that which I believe is reasonable to believe. Or in other words, I believe that which I am convinced to believe. I reserve my beliefs to those things which I've been convinced are true.

More often a species (bad word, but we'll use it for now) evolves into two species that do not belong to the same breeding population.

This is quite interesting, because as far as I can tell, I do not belong to the same breeding population as my dead mother and father. Does that mean that I and my parents are different species? Surely, one cannot interbreed with historical creatures.

It is a lousy system, really a holdover of the biblical concept of kinds. It is falling into disrepute and will be soon gone.

Perhaps, but I don't see a new word solving the problem. It is the definitions that are problematic in my honest opinion. And quite honestly, I don't have a solution for it.

It does both, at the same time.

Yes indeed, that's what everyone is saying. But I'm not satisfied with what everyone is saying.

You understand half the story.

Yes indeed, that's what you're saying. But I'm not convinced you're right.

But you don't understand what accurate science is, so how can you say that?

It seems to me that no one has an accurate understanding of what accurate science is.

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry that you find the Bible impossible to understand. Maybe one day I will attempt to explain it to you.

more of those personal attacks you whine so much about?

Does your hypocrisy have no bounds?

 

[Sapiens]

Actually, I believe that which I believe is reasonable to believe. Or in other words, I believe that which I am convinced to believe. I reserve my beliefs to those things which I've been convinced are true.

That's a mouth full'o mush cop-out that permits you uncontrolled license to believe and unbelieve without reference to any external standard or reference.

This is quite interesting, because as far as I can tell, I do not belong to the same breeding population as my dead mother and father. Does that mean that I and my parents are different species? Surely, one cannot interbreed with historical creatures.

In biological terms you do belong to the same breeding population, you would be fertile and you share half of each's exact (save for any mutations) genotype. But that is just semantic clap-trap, because evolution happens forward not backward,

Perhaps, but I don't see a new word solving the problem. It is the definitions that are problematic in my honest opinion. And quite honestly, I don't have a solution for it.

Rest easy solutions are on the way. In the mean time read up on the biological species concept and ring species, you'll find it interesting and enlightening..

Yes indeed, that's what everyone is saying. But I'm not satisfied with what everyone is saying.

I don't mean to make an appeal to authority, but you might consider that if everybody is telling you that you should consider it.

Yes indeed, that's what you're saying. But I'm not convinced you're right.

Now I am making an appeal to authority because I am a legitimate expert, who studied under many of the pioneers in the field. If I am telling you the same thing everyone else is telling you, you might drop the hubris and listen.

It seems to me that no one has an accurate understanding of what accurate science is.

I'd say that I do, again, I am a legitimate expert on the subject.