I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

If this is acceptable, then…
“One does not need to identify the common Creator in order to determine that there was a common Creator”…
should be an acceptable answer, too.

Well... not exactly. Because in the case of ancestry, we have actual DNA evidence which allows to determine biological common ancestry.

I'm not sure there is a way to recognize artificial design when the source could be literally anything. We recognize human designs, because we know what humans are and what they tend to do. But if some advanced alien race, let alone a god, would send some tech our way - would we recognize it as tech? I'm not so sure. It all depends on the tech.

And your case is even worse... because you claim literally everything that exists as evidence. Meaning that there is no piece of non-evidence to contrast it to.
Like Beavis once said "if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, how would you know it was cool?"

Anyhow...

Sure, in principle and assuming there is a way to detect design independent of its source. But it should still be determined that there is a creator.
Trying to poke holes in what you think are rivaling ideas, don't count as "determining" that there is a creator.
You would need actual falsifiable evidence in support of this creator hypothesis. Got any?

We see purposeful design everywhere we look!

No, we don't.
What we see are people engaging in fallacious arguments from awe and ignorance.

To detect artificial design, it's not enough to just look and assert it.
You need, once again, falsifiable criteria.

Just saying “we don’t know the designer”, is not an acceptable reason to deny the complementary designs.
…

But observing that there is no evidence for either a designer or design by itself, is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We see purpose, by their interaction.

Just asserting to see it, is not enough.
What interaction shows this "purpose"? What are the objective falsifiable criteria that such interactions need to adhere to in order to be "purposeful" where the purpose is super-imposed on it from an outside source?

Just by observing interactions between organisms… there is a balance that’s quite obvious.

Yes, it's obvious. It's also quite fragile. It's part of eco-systems.
Evolution explains this. Not sure why you think the presence of balance in the world of biology is indicative of a super-imposed "purpose".

There is always prey for the predator

Except when there isn't and then the predator dies or worse, goes extinct.

Why? Since survival is the best pressure, prey animals should quickly evolve fangs, talons, poison their flesh, whatever is needed to stop those hunters.

All prey animals have evolved defenses against their predators.
Those predators in turn have evolved ways to get around or otherwise overcome those defenses. It's the biological armsrace. It's part of the balance.

Again, not sure why you think this is indicative of superimposed purpose.

But we don’t see that.

Except that we do.

Anti-predator adaptation - Wikipedia

The balance is maintained

It is. By evolution, ironically.
While the prey evolves more sophisticated defenses, the predator also evolves more sophisticated offenses. Some of those could include traits geared specifically against certain evolved defense systems.

Again, it's an arms race. The predator gets better at hunting the prey and meanwhile the prey gets better at avoiding being eaten.

This likely doesn't always work. Sometimes, one species gets the upperhand. If it's the prey, then the predator might starve if it has no other foodsource. If it's the predator, then the prey is left defenseless.

Ask yourself why you don't see such species around. Might it be because they'll quickly die out and go extinct?

Rodents have been around for eons.

So?

If the ‘gene is selfish’, it’s mutations wouldn’t maintain the equilibrium we observe.

Why not?

Selfishness does nothing but disrupt, and brings disorder & chaos.

Sounds like you either didn't really understand this topic when you read about it, or someone's been misinforming you.

You won’t want to believe this, but the evolution of the genome that we do observe, is of Divine origin, and has Divinely-set limits. IMO.

Declaring it doesn't make it true.
You haven't given a shred of evidence in support of this and this conclusion doesn't even follow from the things you said above.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. We are still apes. As we are still primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc. My parents were apes (primate, mammals, end so on). Like all humans today are still apes, primates, mammals, etc

So, it is obvious we come from apes since we are apes.

What is the problem? You don't like us being apes? What about mammals? Do you prefer something in the middle?

Ciao

- viole

We may be according to theorists in the same category as gorillas, but naturally there is that still as of yet the "Unknown Common Ancestor" for all these 'types.' And absolutely nothing concrete to show that humans evolved from -- gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, or -- that UCA. Somewhere missing that branch no matter what a drawing or conjecture outlines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We may be according to theorists in the same category as gorillas, but naturally there is that still as of yet the "Unknown Common Ancestor" for all these 'types.' And absolutely nothing concrete to show that humans evolved from -- gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, or -- that UCA. Somewhere missing that branch no matter what a drawing or conjecture outlines.

Citation needed. It is more likely that you misunderstood an article on how certain genes in humans are closer to gorilla genes than chimpanzee genes. That does not mean that we are closer to gorillas. One has to analyze the entire genome. Not just a few genes.

 

[ppp]

We may be according to theorists in the same category as gorillas, but naturally there is that still as of yet the "Unknown Common Ancestor" for all these 'types.'

Citation needed.

And absolutely nothing concrete to show that humans evolved from -- gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, or -- that UCA.

Citation needed.

Somewhere missing that branch no matter what a drawing or conjecture outlines.

Grammarian needed.

 

[joelr]

There are multiple mechanisms of evolution, and significant change can occur relatively quickly given the right conditions.

Yes I believe that is true.

 

[viole]

We may be according to theorists in the same category as gorillas, but naturally there is that still as of yet the "Unknown Common Ancestor" for all these 'types.' And absolutely nothing concrete to show that humans evolved from -- gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, or -- that UCA. Somewhere missing that branch no matter what a drawing or conjecture outlines.

Well, do you agree we are apes then? If not, shall we settle for primate?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I wrote the text. there is no need for me to look for it. You on the other hand didn't seem to read it, since you badly misrepresented what it said.

Ok, so you don't think we are mammals. Is the interpretation good now? For, either you think we are mammals or we don't.
However, I understand why you do not like to make a clear move in one direction or the other. You are in a mating net, basically.
Either the obvious, or denial.

Ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, so you don't think we are mammals. Is the interpretation good now? For, either you think we are mammals or we don't.
However, I understand why you do not like to make a clear move in one direction or the other. You are in a mating net, basically.
Either the obvious, or denial.

Ciao

- viole

According to classification humans are mammals. I don't dispute that. I hope that settles it. oh wait I see you didn't post that to me. I answered anyway hope you will take that into consideration.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, do you agree we are apes then? If not, shall we settle for primate?

Ciao

- viole

Oh I don't reject the classification of primate. Maybe I will, lol, I'll see. But as I said, if I were in school and had to pass a test I wouldn't feel bad by saying According to the theory we humans are apes.

 

[viole]

According to classification humans are mammals. I don't dispute that. I hope that settles it. oh wait I see you didn't post that to me. I answered anyway hope you will take that into consideration.

It settles it with you. Not sure what your co-believer thinks.
Anyway, what about a subset of mammals: primates. Do you agree we are primates?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Oh I don't reject the classification of primate. Maybe I will, lol, I'll see. But as I said, if I were in school and had to pass a test I wouldn't feel bad by saying According to the theory we humans are apes.

According to the theory...and any normal mirror.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

What's happening now? Adaptation? Change? Or ape to man evolution?
Ape to man evolution? No. Where? Nowhere... Not now. Not ever... as in, never.

Humans are apes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speciation from fish to landlubbers has not been "observed." Speculation (of speciation) is certainly heralded by many, but where is there observation? Please provide observable proof or data of the "speciation" you are referring to. Thank you.

This has been provided for you, ad nauseam. You've made it crystal clear that you aren't interested in learning anything about evolution. Heck, you're still saying the exact same inaccurate things you did on your first day here, despite having evolution explained to you countless times at this point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's start with "chemical reactions".
In order for chemicals to react they must interact.
This happens naturally, is what you are saying?
So you are saying that chemicals naturally formed, and then naturally interact?

I'm just trying to understand you.
The laws of physics. You believe they formed naturally as well? From what natural process?

Every time you move or think or do anything, there are all kinds of chemicals interacting in your brain as a result of incoming stimuli. This all occurs naturally.
Or do you think that some God is tinkering in our every thought, every move, producing each individual synapse experienced by every creature on earth?

 

[YoursTrue]

According to the theory...and any normal mirror.

Ciao

- viole

The theory. When I look in the mirror I don't see a bonobo, gorilla, chimpanzee or any ape, lol. maybe you see yourself and other humans that way?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you accept. admit, and believe that chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and humans emerged (evolved) from what is purportedly acknowledged as an "Unknown Common Ancestor"?

Do you accept, admit that you and your parents and your aunts and uncles and your cousins and children and yourself, emerged from a long-dead ancestor that you've never identified or seen before? Does your inability to identify that long-lost ancestor mean that you and your all your family members that have lived since then aren't related?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The theory. When I look in the mirror I don't see a bonobo, gorilla, chimpanzee or any ape, lol. maybe you see yourself and other humans that way?

You do see someone who looks a lot like them though.

 

[viole]

The theory. When I look in the mirror I don't see a bonobo, gorilla, chimpanzee or any ape, lol. maybe you see yourself and other humans that way?

Yes, I have no problem to consider myself an ape. Even though I take pride to belong to the "great" category thereof.

Now, add mentally lots of hair to your body so that the face and the rest of the body is covered with hair.

So, I am sure every child looking at you will say they saw an ape (Christian meaning of the word). Not a tiger, not a spider, not a mouse, but, without any doubt whatsoever, an ape. The living being closest to what you call "ape", in all of creation. Germans even call gorillas and such "Menschenaffen", where Menschen = people, Affen = Apes, to stress even further our strong physical resemblance.

Now, since this appears obvious, what do Christians really think it differentiates us from the other apes. Just some additional hair?

And since "ape" is a biological denomination like "mammal", why do you seem to have no problem to be a mammal, while you seem to be reluctant to be an ape? Are apes somehow less worthy than general mammals? Why? Are gorillas less worthy than rats? Why?

Ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I have no problem to consider myself an ape. Even though I take pride to belong to the "great" category thereof.

Very funny I laughed out loud at your little joke. Now I wonder if gorillas think like that. I mean if they're happy that they are in the great ape category. SOME gorillas, maybe not all.

Now, add mentally lots of hair to your body so that the face and the rest of the body is covered with hair.

So, I am sure every child looking at you will say they saw an ape (Christian meaning of the word). Not a tiger, not a spider, not a mouse, but, without any doubt whatsoever, an ape. The living being closest to what you call "ape", in all of creation.

Now, since this appears obvious, what do Christians really think it differentiates us from the other apes. Just some additional hair?

Ah good question. First let me say that not all those calling themselves Christian believe the same way. So I can only tell you the way my mind handles these things now.

And since "ape" is a biological denomination like "mammal", why do you seem to have no problem to be a mammal, while you seem top be reluctant to be an ape? Are apes somehow less worthy than general mammals? Why?

Ciao

- viole

Mammal refers to those with mammary glands, but now that you bring it up maybe I'll take issue with that category as classifying humans but maybe not now. So I'll go along with mammal in that sense of description but now that you're talking about it, it seems I may not refer to us (humans) as mammals any more.