Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Sonofason]

more of those personal attacks you whine so much about?

Does your hypocrisy have no bounds?

I think you're confusing hypocrisy with wisdom, but then, how could you know that?

 

[Sonofason]

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

Well, I have seen interesting discoveries around the San Francisco Bay area regarding ring species as it relates to salamander populations. It is indeed very compelling evidence of speciation. However, I've never had a problem understanding variation in species. I am a little perplexed by the notion that two species must be different species if they are incapable of interbreeding, but that's how the human constructed definition goes, so I guess I have to accept it how it is, however flawed it is.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, I have seen interesting discoveries around the San Francisco Bay area regarding ring species as it relates to salamander populations. It is indeed very compelling evidence of speciation. However, I've never had a problem understanding variation in species. I am a little perplexed by the notion that two species must be different species if they are incapable of interbreeding, but that's how the human constructed definition goes, so I guess I have to accept it how it is, however flawed it is.

There I agree with you the Biological Species Concept is flawed.

 

[Sonofason]

There I agree with you the Biological Species Concept is flawed.

Well, I am certainly pleased that you recognize the problem as I do. But the task of resolving such a problem is so far in my opinion a daunting one. How can we resolve this problem without realizing that the life we all have is exactly the same life existing in various bodies of varying characteristics and physical traits? We humans have been nearly capable of eliminating the barriers that have existed for centuries on the basis of race, but how long shall we wait to see this barrier of speciation keep us from recognizing that we are indeed all one and the same thing?

 

[McBell]

I think you're confusing hypocrisy with wisdom, but then, how could you know that?

It is refreshing to know that you are not as morally superior as you want everyone to think.

 

[Sonofason]

It is refreshing to know that you are not as morally superior as you want everyone to think.

Well, I'm happy to help in any way I can. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, I am certainly pleased that you recognize the problem as I do. But the task of resolving such a problem is so far in my opinion a daunting one. How can we resolve this problem without realizing that the life we all have is exactly the same life existing in various bodies of varying characteristics and physical traits? We humans have been nearly capable of eliminating the barriers that have existed for centuries on the basis of race, but how long shall we wait to see this barrier of speciation keep us from recognizing that we are indeed all one and the same thing?

You are a johnny come lately to this idea so let's not go overboard patting yourself on the back over reaching an understanding that many of us have had since High School or before. Start reading here: Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and follow the internal links.

 

[Sonofason]

You are a johnny come lately to this idea so let's not go overboard patting yourself on the back over reaching an understanding that many of us have had since High School or before. Start reading here: Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and follow the internal links.

I'm sorry to inform you that I have been stewing on this problem for nearly 30 years. And it is the primary reason I have not and will not consider evolution a fact. You apparently accept the notions presented by a faulty system of definitions. I don't. Fix the problems, and we might have agreement.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm sorry to inform you that I have been stewing on this problem for nearly 30 years. And it is the primary reason I have not and will not consider evolution a fact. You apparently accept the notions presented by a faulty system of definitions. I don't. Fix the problems, and we might have agreement.

The 'species problem' has no impact whatsoever on evolution being a fact. If it is the primary reason that you deny the fact of evolution, than you have simply misunderstood what evolution means for 30 years. Which is frankly astonishing.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm sorry to inform you that I have been stewing on this problem for nearly 30 years. And it is the primary reason I have not and will not consider evolution a fact. You apparently accept the notions presented by a faulty system of definitions. I don't. Fix the problems, and we might have agreement.

No, I understand the limitations of the past definitions of the word species, which stems from the limitations of the religious concept of "kinds" and I don't let that rather minor issue get in the way of a much larger understanding of the universe around me.

 

[Sonofason]

No, I understand the limitations of the past definitions of the word species, which stems from the limitations of the religious concept of "kinds" and I don't let that rather minor issue get in the way of a much larger understanding of the universe around me.

Apparently, the limitations of past definitions has little to do with religion and the religious concept of "kinds", as I am religious and have a full grasp of the problems that atheists have created in the process of extorting creation from God.

 

[Sonofason]

The 'species problem' has no impact whatsoever on evolution being a fact. If it is the primary reason that you deny the fact of evolution, than you have simply misunderstood what evolution means for 30 years. Which is frankly astonishing.

I'm quite pleased to have astonished you. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apparently, the limitations of past definitions has little to do with religion and the religious concept of "kinds", as I am religious and have a full grasp of the problems that atheists have created in the process of extorting creation from God.

So there are any?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm quite pleased to have astonished you. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Well yes, I would expect amperson who had considered evolution for 30 years to know what evolution means. You clearly do not. It is quite amazing to imagine that in 30 years nobody ever told you what evolution really means.

To be honest, what I see from your posts is a person simply refusing to accept a word meaning - not a challenge to evolution in any way at all, just a demonstration of your refusal to accept a simple word meaning.

 

[McBell]

Apparently, the limitations of past definitions has little to do with religion and the religious concept of "kinds", as I am religious and have a full grasp of the problems that atheists have created in the process of extorting creation from God.

ROTFLMAO

"full grasp"

:biglaugh:

 

[HiEv]

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

I don't find the Bible impossible to understand. It's just wrong.

I'm sorry that you apparently find evolution so difficult to understand. You're actually kind of close to getting it. However, I've actually attempted to explain it here and you appear to have ignored everything I said so you could insult my understanding of the Bible. You don't appear to want to understand evolution any better.

I find that to be quite sad.

Care to try again and actually respond to my points on evolution? That is the topic here.

 

[Sonofason]

Well yes, I would expect amperson who had considered evolution for 30 years to know what evolution means. You clearly do not. It is quite amazing to imagine that in 30 years nobody ever told you what evolution really means.

To be honest, what I see from your posts is a person simply refusing to accept a word meaning - not a challenge to evolution in any way at all, just a demonstration of your refusal to accept a simple word meaning.

I am not inclined to put a great deal of faith into theories constructed upon faulty premises and definitions, even if some of the underlying premises seem reasonable and true. And I am very curious how you have reached the following contradictory conclusions about what I understand, in that in one breath you suggest I do not know what evolution means, and in the next breath you suggest that I have not in any way challenged evolution. If indeed I have not put forth any challenges to evolution, how is it that you can conclude that I do not know what evolution means? On what basis do you suggest that I don't know what evolution means?

 

[Sonofason]

ROTFLMAO

"full grasp"

:biglaugh:

Yes, "full grasp", as in "to take hold of with the mind", "to comprehend", "to understand".
Grasp - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Sapiens]

Apparently, the limitations of past definitions has little to do with religion and the religious concept of "kinds", as I am religious and have a full grasp of the problems that atheists have created in the process of extorting creation from God.

Understanding the history of science is, in part, dependent upon understanding the science itself, and there you have demonstrated a significant deficiency.

What a ring species spreads over geography normal "species" spread over time and that is what makes it difficult for you to "observ directly." Every single individual is what it is, an individual on it's way from what its progenitor was, to what its decedents will be. A "species" or "kind" has no more meaning than an average of all the individuals of that relational family (in the closely heritable rather than taxonomic sense, we might even insert there, as an approximation, the concept of being able to produce fertile offspring). This is a concept that is useful only conversationally. It is of no meaning in an evolutionary sense, except to place a boundary upon how far a fitter gene may travel.

 

[Sonofason]

Understanding the history of science is, in part, dependent upon understanding the science itself, and there you have demonstrated a significant deficiency.

What a ring species spreads over geography normal "species" spread over time and that is what makes it difficult for you to "observ directly." Every single individual is what it is, an individual on it's way from what its progenitor was, to what its decedents will be. A "species" or "kind" has no more meaning than an average of all the individuals of that relational family (in the closely heritable rather than taxonomic sense, we might even insert there, as an approximation, the concept of being able to produce fertile offspring). This is a concept that is useful only conversationally. It is of no meaning in an evolutionary sense, except to place a boundary upon how far a fitter gene may travel.

One could easily ace an exam on evolution without believing that it actually happens. So please do explain how exactly I have demonstrated a deficiency in understanding the science of evolution. It would be nice if you could separate out the personal insults from the subject matter at hand.