I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Frank Goad]

I still don't understand why someone would start this thread then not participate at all. If they were genuine questions why wouldn't he want to discuss the answers with the people who were kind enough to use some of their valuable time to answer?

Sorry.I usually just like the feedback from other people.Unless something someone types catches my eye.

 

[John53]

Sorry.I usually just like the feedback from other people.Unless something someone types catches my eye.

You don't think they deserve some feedback after taking time out of their lives to answer you?

 

[Frank Goad]

You don't think they deserve some feedback after taking time out of their lives to answer you?

Sorry.Good point.

 

[Frank Goad]

We don't come from Monkeys.
Monkeys and Humans both have a common ancestor

Thanks for the information.

 

[ppp]

Thanks for the information.

The last name is appropriate. The first, not so much.

 

[Valjean]

Adaptation is evolution? So evolution is adaptation? ...but you said... You may call evolution adaption if it makes you feel better about rejecting observed evidence, that's your problem

Evolution is accumulated adaptations and other changes. Lots of small changes accumulate into large changes.

I'm sorry, but I referred to objective truths. Not mythology.
Mythology does not produce reality. Results are realities. That's why they work.

How do you determine what beliefs are objective? How can unevidenced mythological beliefs be considered objective truth?
How are you defining "objective," if not based on empirical evidence?

 

[night912]

Why is the education system such a failure?

People refusing to be educated doesn't mean that the education system is a failure.

 

[metis]

People refusing to be educated doesn't mean that the education system is a failure.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[nPeace]

Evolution is accumulated adaptations and other changes. Lots of small changes accumulate into large changes.

How do you determine what beliefs are objective?

Results.

How can unevidenced mythological beliefs be considered objective truth?

unevidenced mythological beliefs? Such as?

How are you defining "objective," if not based on empirical evidence?

Who says it's not based on empirical evidence?

 

[nPeace]

I have read the bible and have seen the result manifest itself in many christians

Many people have read the Bible, but when they start to tell what they read, one wonders how they read.
They also have hypotheses, like you do, and think they have facts.

 

[ChristineM]

Many people have read the Bible, but when they start to tell what they read, one wonders how they read.
They also have hypotheses, like you do, and think they have facts.

I read it as written, not as interpreted by various different beliefs to best suit a particular faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's happening now?

Evolution. Every new generation, every new born, comes with a set of mutations. These mutations are past on to off spring. Who add their own mutations. And so on.
Over generations, these mutations accumulate.

Adaptation? Change?

Yes.

Or ape to man evolution?

No.

Ape to man evolution? No. Where? Nowhere... Not now.

Indeed. Instead, this occurred over the passed 7-ish million years.

Not ever... as in, never.

DNA disagrees.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This ancient ancestor of apes and monkeys... did you see it? Did anyone see it?

No. We don't need to.

Just like we don't need to see the parents of 2 random orphaned babies to know that those babies are siblings / cousins / related to some extent.

All we need for that is a DNA sample of both. From there, we can know if they share ancestry and are able to estimate how far back that ancestor lived.

Regardless of our ability to identify that ancestor.
Identification is not required to be able to determine that "a" common ancestor existed.

DNA doesn't lie.

It's not anything like God, is it?

Indeed it isn't. We have bulletproof evidence for common ancestry. No "faith" required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The last name is appropriate. The first, not so much.

The last name part made me think the exact same thing upon seeing the content of the OP.

 

[ppp]

The last name part made me think the exact same thing upon seeing the content of the OP.

I thought it was a clever play on words. I approve.

 

[gnostic]

unevidenced mythological beliefs? Such as?

The transformation of (lifeless and inorganic) dust (Genesis) or clay (Quran) into a living adult human male, is a myth, not science.

The Earth being created with water and no lands, is a myth, not science.

A couple of spoken words (eg “Let there be light”), to create light (with no sun), which divide divide day as cycle of evening and morning...that’s also a myth, and certainly not science.

And vegetation being created before the creation of sun and stars, is a myth, not science.

A serpent/snake or donkey that can speak in human language, is a fable (myth), not science.

So...Yes, the Abrahamic religious scriptures contained myths of magic, miracles and the supernatural.

And the problems aren’t just with Genesis creation.

There are also the problems with Noah’s great Flood, the overnight invention of multiple languages in Babel episode, flying and fiery horses and chariot in Elijah’s story, and the ridiculous reply with god creating everything in Job 38 to 41, are examples of myths, not science.

 

[nPeace]

I read it as written, not as interpreted by various different beliefs to best suit a particular faith.

In that case, you should... if you are honest, not accept any interpretation of scientist. That means.... reject all science.
If you take up an ancient document and read it, and take everything literally, then you are not interested in investigative research.
Even when listening to conversation, we do not take such a closed minded approach.
Not with friends. Not with anyone. Unless...

 

[nPeace]

Evolution. Every new generation, every new born, comes with a set of mutations. These mutations are past on to off spring. Who add their own mutations. And so on.
Over generations, these mutations accumulate.




Yes.



No.



Indeed. Instead, this occurred over the passed 7-ish million years.



DNA disagrees.

DNA does not speak. That's the interpretation of men speaking that disagrees.

 

[nPeace]

No. We don't need to.

Just like we don't need to see the parents of 2 random orphaned babies to know that those babies are siblings / cousins / related to some extent.

All we need for that is a DNA sample of both. From there, we can know if they share ancestry and are able to estimate how far back that ancestor lived.

Regardless of our ability to identify that ancestor.
Identification is not required to be able to determine that "a" common ancestor existed.

DNA doesn't lie.

See my previous post.

Indeed it isn't. We have bulletproof evidence for common ancestry. No "faith" required.

Bullet proof evidence? Lol
That's a hypothesis.

 

[ChristineM]

In that case, you should... if you are honest, not accept any interpretation of scientist. That means.... reject all science.
If you take up an ancient document and read it, and take everything literally, then you are not interested in investigative research.
Even when listening to conversation, we do not take such a closed minded approach.
Not with friends. Not with anyone. Unless...

No it doesn't mean reject science, it means take it AS WRITTEN... Compare it with similar studies, examine the peer reviews. I see you have a problem with that. Interestingly, you use various aspects of science to post.

It i take up an ancient document and read it i will compare it to other documents of the same period. If they confirm each other then i can put a little mire trust in them. But if you make stuff up to massage your ego, that is not for me!