Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Muffled]

I don't know what you mean by this.

DNA doesn't "work on" mutations. Mutations happen within DNA.

Mutations can be a starting point for the evolution of a particular trait spreading throughout a species, however it's merely the first step in a long series of steps over many generations before that trait becomes common.

Most likely, unless the malfunction only appears after a few offspring are produced. This is why there is no way to select against presbyopia (the hardening of the lenses in our eyes which makes it harder to see small/nearby objects which usually happens after age 40 or so), which usually occurs after most people have had their children.

Also, if the mutation happens to be positive, then natural selection will make it more likely to become common within a population.

Neutral mutations may or may not spread, but over time, these neutral mutations may further mutate into something which may or may not help those who have it. One shouldn't discount the role of neutral mutations.

In any case, the fact that there will be changes in the frequency of that mutation within a population over generations is what is called the fact of evolution.

I beleive what I meant was that they are using mutations in the DNA to determine if people are related.

I had an intersting dream last night. I dreamt that a hominid species that could fashion weapons and speak words killed off a hominid species that could not fashion weapons or speak words.

 

[Khatru]

Dear Readers, It is impossible for Humans to have evolved from the common ancestor of Apes since Humans were made long before ANY other living creature. Adam, the common ancestor of ALL Humans was made the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 Jesus made Adam of the dust of the ground BEFORE the first Stars of our Universe put forth their light on the FOURTH Day. Gen 1:16

This means that the common ancestor of Apes, on our Earth, lived Billions of years AFTER Adam, the first Human was made, according to Scripture. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Thanks but I'll stick with science.

 

[Sonofason]

So you ignored all of the specific definitions at that site, and just used the ones that had the word "kind" in them? That's a bit dishonest, IMHO.

The first definition which actually appears there is, "biology: a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus".

I don't see how anything I've said is dishonest. I quite simply do not accept your definition of species. Species evolve over time, and that precludes a species from changing into another species. Fix the terms, and perhaps we'll have agreement.

I guess you utterly failed to notice that the definition of the word "kind" completely lacks the specificity of the word "species". So no, there's actually a huge difference between the very specific meaning of the word "species" and the far more general word "kind".

For example, in the Bible, bats are a kind of bird (Leviticus 11:13-19). That's because they both have wings and fly, so with the loose terminology of "kind" that's acceptable. However, with the more precise terminology of "species", they are very clearly not birds.

Even Answers in Genesis, that bastion of anti-science creationist rhetoric, agrees that "kind" and "species" don't mean the same thing (for example here).

So, no, "kinds" and "species" don't mean the same thing at all.

Again, I don't accept the definition of species as it relates to the classification of species. Species evolve, they don't change into new new species. I accept a definition of species that is synonymous with the word kind. You will need a new word for the specific classification of past and present species characteristics and traits as they are translated over time. You cannot say that an evolving species evolves into another species. Either the species evolves, or it does not.

Congratulations, you accept the fact of evolution. Because that's all the fact of evolution is.

That's wonderful. Species evolve over time. But evolving species do not become new species. A species does not change into another species over time. The characteristics are what changes, not the species.

Yup, this is pretty much the inevitable result of accepting the fact of evolution. Given enough generations, differences will accumulate, thus, by definition, new species will slowly emerge.

No. There are no new species being created. It is the same species with new characteristics. You're definition of species is flawed.

Uh... Have you read the Bible?

Of course.

God creates the heavens and the Earth first (though somehow the Earth is "formless and empty", yet God manages to hover over its waters anyways). It's only after that when God says, "Let there be light." Somehow God separates this light into day and night on day 1, but He doesn't get around to creating the Sun until day 4.

If you don't know how the heavens and the Earth can be formed empty and void, I believe it is rather pointless to discuss it. Is it possible to create something in your mind? If so, then it is quite possible for God to have created a heaven and an earth without physical dimension. Light was the first physical property created by God, and He spoke it into existence. It emanated from Him.

How can the Earth be "formless and empty" yet have water? How can you have day and night without the Sun? How can you have light without a light source? How can you "separate light from the darkness"?

Those early bible passages don't say that the water was on earth. Any time of light is a day. God is the source of all light.
Darkness doesn't exist. Darkness is nothing more than an abstract concept constructed to articulate a state where light is not present. Darkness is not something which exists. It is just a concept for the abstract concept lacking something that does exist.

If I were to shine light through a completely empty glass box, light would exist in the box.
If I were to place a coffee cup in the same empty glass box, a coffee cup would exist in the box.

If I were to remove the light from the first box, we would be left with exactly the same thing that we would have if I were to remove the coffee cup from the second box, absolutely nothing. Darkness is as much nothing as the absence of a coffee cup. But the word darkness implies that there is something specific that is lacking, namely that thing which does exist, which is light.

If you really think about it, this all makes no sense.

If you were to really think about it, you would see that everything I've said makes sense.

Yeah, and sometimes God is surrounded by darkness:

I suppose you could say that if you want. We could also say that God is sometimes surrounded by a lack of coffee cups. What's the difference?

]"Then Solomon said, 'The LORD has said that He would dwell in a dark cloud;'" - 1 Kings 8:12 and 2 Chronicles 6:1

"The LORD reigns, let the earth be glad; let the distant shores rejoice. Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne." - Psalm 97:2

"In my distress I called to the LORD; I cried to my God for help. From his temple He heard my voice; my cry came before him, into his ears. The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from His mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under His feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, His canopy around him-- the dark rain clouds of the sky." - Psalm 18:6-11

(There's a version of God you don't see depicted very often! Sounds a lot like Zeus.)

I do not have sufficient knowledge to make such determinations.

This is incorrect. Evening, specifically after sunset and three stars are visible, was the start of the new day in the Hebrew tradition. So evening was both the end and the beginning of the day according to the people who wrote Genesis. (source)

You telling me that the definitions I use are incorrect does not of course make my definitions incorrect. Perhaps the early Jews were in as much darkness over the matter as you presently seem to be.

But that's not what Genesis actually says. It says, that in the beginning "darkness was over the waters of the deep", which is exactly where God was "hovering" at that time (Genesis 1:2). Light only came into existence in Genesis after God creates it. If God is the light, then it makes no sense that God would have to create the light, nor that God could be exactly where the darkness was. Heck, that passage is just more support for the "God dwells in darkness" argument.

I disagree. If God speaks a Word, and if the Word was from God, then the Word was God.
If God speaks light, and if the light was from God, then the light was God.
Indeed, an amazing mystery.

Furthermore, Genesis 1:14-19 specifically says that the Sun, Moon, and stars were created on day 4 to give light to the Earth. So Genesis 1 specifically says what the lights are on day 4, and I see not a single suggestion that God is the light referred to there.

It looks like you're making things up which the Bible doesn't actually say, and in fact, the Bible suggests the opposite.

There is light, and there are specific sources of light. Luminary objects are sources of light, but they are not light.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually it isn't. It is a common misunderstanding of the term "species".

The term species is only able to be used as a general classification of characteristics of any given population at any given time. Did you catch that last part there?

Ways this is useful. It allows us to the determine more or less the genetic charictaristics of a population over time using different samples. Ways it is harmful to those unfamiliar with evolution are as follows;
1) there is no line drawn between species but only differences from the genetic track over long periods of time. Just as there are no specific moments in history where one animal gave birth to another there is no end to one species and into another.

2) People don't understand how things evolve from one thing to another in specialization so they assume that a dog turned into a cat. Rather than a four legged animal many years ago had several different evolutionary paths for different groups that took on new traits that eventually develop to what we have today and will continue to develop into the future.

If a species evolves over time, it evolves over all time, and to categorize evolving species according to present or past characteristics and traits using the same word is a flagrant debauchery of human language.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's wonderful. Species evolve over time. But evolving species do not become new species. A species does not change into another species over time. The characteristics are what changes, not the species.

You got it. You finally got it. There is no changing of "species" in the way that one becomes another but that the charactaristics of a group change (dramatically so in many cases) over long periods of time. And when we get to specific distinctions between two genetic groups that we find in the fossil record that were related to a previous parent genetic group then we call that a different species.

But in that sense it is ONLY ever the characteristics that change.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If a species evolves over time, it evolves over all time, and to categorize evolving species according to present or past characteristics and traits using the same word is a flagrant debauchery of human language.

See below. The fundamental misunderstanding of what species is however will be corrected later.

 

[Sonofason]

You got it. You finally got it. There is no changing of "species" in the way that one becomes another but that the charactaristics of a group change (dramatically so in many cases) over long periods of time. And when we get to specific distinctions between two genetic groups that we find in the fossil record that were related to a previous parent genetic group then we call that a different species.

But in that sense it is ONLY ever the characteristics that change.

"we call that a different species." I'm with you up to this point. I do not call them different species. If you desire my full compliance, the word species must be removed from the classification system. If you want to identify the characteristics of a species by genome, then you can do that, but there shall be no calling a changing species another species on my part.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"we call that a different species." I'm with you up to this point. I do not call them different species. If you desire my full compliance, the word species must be removed from the classification system. If you want to identify the characteristics of a species by genome, then you can do that, but there shall be no calling a changing species another species on my part.

Why?

 

[Sonofason]

Why?

Because the nature of an evolving species does not allow for a new species being created.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because the nature of an evolving species does not allow for a new species being created.

What is the definition of species? For the sake of argument can you write it out for me?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Because the nature of an evolving species does not allow for a new species being created.

Species is a relative term. A species is not a permanent term for all descendants of that species. Homo Sapians are homo sapians but in several hundred thousand years from now we will probably be something else. We will no longer be genetically the same as we are now. And if we are not genetically the same then how can we be a species?

 

[Sonofason]

What is the definition of species? For the sake of argument can you write it out for me?

There is no acceptable definition for the word species.

If a species is characterized by a particular set of characteristics and traits shared by individual of a particular population of creatures that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, then a species by definition cannot evolve.

If a species is capable of evolving over time, then one particular species cannot be determined by any one set of characteristics and traits, and cannot be based on a capability of interbreeding and producing viable offspring.

 

[Sonofason]

Species is a relative term. A species is not a permanent term for all descendants of that species. Homo Sapians are homo sapians but in several hundred thousand years from now we will probably be something else. We will no longer be genetically the same as we are now. And if we are not genetically the same then how can we be a species?

So long as we humans are capable of communication, and assuming we do continue to communicate, and assuming that one particular segment of the human population does not become set apart, or disassociated from the rest of human beings, we shall never become anything but human beings.

 

[Ben West]

He won't.

His debate style is to repeat his point until you stop bothering.

Dear Quax, False accusation since I try to answer questions. It's usually because the inquisitor is not very specific but sometimes I just ramble on, like everyone else does. God Bless you

 

[Ben West]

That's great, but why not address what I actually wrote?

Dear jonathan, I already have. Here it is:

Dear jonathan,>>>>>>> Not so, since the end of our Earth will happen TODAY, on the present 6th Creative Day.<<<<<<<<<<<<

Are you having problems keeping up or in comprehension? Focus really hard and try again?

 

[Ben West]

Thanks but I'll stick with science.

Dear Khatru, Go ahead. It's YOUR free choice....but what if you are wrong? If I'm wrong, no problem for we will just die and rot....BUT....If you are wrong, there will be real problems: Jesus tells us:

Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

How horrible to live like a worm forever. God Bless you

 

[Parsimony]

If I'm wrong, no problem for we will just die and rot....

Not necessarily. You could end up the Islamic Hell.

 

[McBell]

Its an insult to mankind to say they evolved from monkeys.

it would also be incorrect.

Humans evolved from apes, not monkeys.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is no acceptable definition for the word species.

If a species is characterized by a particular set of characteristics and traits shared by individual of a particular population of creatures that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, then a species by definition cannot evolve.

If a species is capable of evolving over time, then one particular species cannot be determined by any one set of characteristics and traits, and cannot be based on a capability of interbreeding and producing viable offspring.

Now you are starting to get it.

Species is only ever used in localized terms meaning a specific genetic pool at a specific time. The problem is that we have species as the biological term to describe our current life. We can say that wolves are their own species and that humans are their own species. However this definition begins to break down in some people's minds when we get to the point that change over time creates new species.

Now science uses the term species to mean a specific genetic group at a given "time". That time, in modern biology, usually means the present. But we also have "time" of fossils. So if we look at it as exactly 8 million years ago we can have a species. But there is no line in which that species crosses to the next. We only have significant change over time till the next fossil which is genetically different enough to be considered a new species.

Another way to look at it is our classification system.
Kingdom->Phylum>Class->order->family->Tribe(sometimes)->Genus->species.

Species is current. The Genus is the common ancestor to all species within that Genus. Family is the common ancestor to all within that Genus and subsequently species. Same for Order to Family and Class to order all the way up to Kingdom.

So we have Humans who are Homo Sapiens.
Species Sapiens
Genus Homo
tribe hominini
FAmily hominadae
order primates
class mammalia
phylum Chordata
Kingdom Animalia.

So for example australopithecus which is one of our older ancestors only has
animalia, chordata, mammalia, primates, hominadae, hominini and then subtribe/genus australopithecus. species africanus.

In science the species name simply puts the genus and the species scientific name together so as to avoid having ot call them an animalia chordata mammalia primate hominadae hominini homo sapien.

 

[Midnight Rain]

So long as we humans are capable of communication, and assuming we do continue to communicate, and assuming that one particular segment of the human population does not become set apart, or disassociated from the rest of human beings, we shall never become anything but human beings.

This isn't actually true either. We will always have genetic drift. We won't ever have two species out of homo sapiens but we could drift into another classification if we become genetically different from what we are now. Though we probably wouldn't call ourselves anything new for a long long long time.