I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[nPeace]

Ah, “the old singular vs plural trick”... mimicking Maxwell Smart from Get Smart.

You are not being exhaustive enough with your “biblical” scholarship.

I, like you, we both don’t read Hebrew, so we rely on English translation, and like most English-only-speaking, we rely on others who translated the Bible, and most people focused on just one translation, excluding all other translations.

That’s really ok, for any ordinary believers, to use only one translation.

But not okay with those biblical scholars. Real scholars actually go to the languages of sources...meaning, they would not only use English translations, but also look at sources from Hebrew (eg the Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls), Latin (eg Vulgate Bible), Greek (the various manuscripts of the Septuagint, eg codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus; note that the original Hellenistic 3rd to 1st centuries BCE Septuagint, otherwise known as LXX Septuagint have not survived, unless the fragments of Papyrus Rylands 456 is it, but these fragments could be recension, not the original), Aramaic Targum, etc.

Most modern English translations (20th and 21st centuries publications) of the Old Testament, rely on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and Greek Codex Vaticanus, as respective primary and secondary sources.

I am not biblical scholar, but I don’t think you are too. We are both amateurs.

But the points being scholars rely on more than 1 source, or even more than 1 translation.

But seeing that I don’t read any other language than English, the best I can do, is use multiple translations of original sources.

I don’t know which translation you are using, but it seemed to be NASB, judging by your use of the word “expanse”, “heaven” and “heavens”.

Are you using NASB or another translation?

I am not relying on NASB alone, or NRSV. I am looking at multiple translations in regarding to Genesis 1. They include:

• NASB
• NRSV
• NIV
• KJV
• NJPS, my personal favourite, because this 1985 translations of the Tanakh, which relied solely on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, meaning no Greek Septuagint was used to complement the translation. This translation of the Tanakh, was translated by 20th century Jewish philologists and scholars .
• The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Martin Abegg jr, Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, which is available in Kindle.

What is the point in all this about scholarship and multiple translations, you may ask.

As I said in my last reply, regarding to the vagueness of the word heaven or heavens.

You may be using NASB translations, but in KJV, they have used only the singular heaven in 1:1, 1:8, 1:14, and in 11:4 (Tower of Babel episode.

NASB also used the singular “heaven” in Babel incident, but in NRSV, the plural “heavens”, as do NIV. While NJPS used “sky”.

I cannot tell you what the Dead Sea Scrolls (translation) say, as this chapter on Babel is completely missing.

Like I said, it depends on the translation, whether “heaven” or “heavens” being used.

So your use of “heaven” being referring only to Earth’s atmosphere, because other translations might used heavens in some passage.

Sorry, nPeace. Your “expertise” isn’t half as good as you think you are.

And beside that. God placing the sun, moon and stars in the Earth’s atmosphere, is ridiculous claim, as the atmosphere boundary is only about 100 miles above sea level.

Whil I would agree that the moon is orbiting around the Earth, it is not situated within the Earth atmosphere. So using atmosphere on Genesis 1:14-18, is still faulty claims in biblical scholarship and in sciences.

Your attempt at using modern knowledge of Earth, Earth’s atmosphere, and astronomy, on Genesis, is still a failure.

You don't know much about the NWT and Jehovah's people, do you.
Perhaps you could research the source of their Bible translation. It might surprise you.
Have an enjoyable evening.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

If we come from monkeys.Why are monkeys not turning into humans still?

If we came from monkeys.Why doesn't someone make a machine that evolves stuff.And evolve a monkey into a human?

 

[gnostic]

You don't know much about the NWT and Jehovah's people, do you.
Perhaps you could research the source of their Bible translation. It might surprise you.

Admittedly, I am not professional researcher, nor professional researcher, but I have done my research.

And my research weren’t limited to the Bible or the extra-biblical literature.

My times spent on websites (Timeless Myths & Dark Mirrors of Heaven) did provide me with experiences in investigating sources, chasing down ancient and medieval literature. And much of the genres were myths of other religions, fables, folklores, legends and even some history (such as historical backgrounds of the sources or the sources’ origin).

And though I never join any church, for a number of years, I did believe in the stories of the Bible. What made me doubts the Bible, back in 2000, started with the gospel claims of messianic prophecies, starting with Matthew 1 (Immanuel sign) in comparison with Isaiah 7.

So really, you cannot tell what I do or don’t understand.

And I understand enough of literary analysis, that your claims about Genesis 1, are wrong and illogical.

 

[We Never Know]

If I am descended from an Irishman, why are there still Irish?

In many hundreds of years there many not be any irishmen or etc.
The way we are interbreeding purity may be bred out.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks. I said that. Don't know why you think repeating it answers my question.

 

[Astrophile]

If we come from monkeys, why are monkeys not turning into humans still?

If we came from monkeys.Why doesn't someone make a machine that evolves stuff. And evolve a monkey into a human?

Evolution is not like a ladder, with all living things evolving up the rungs of the ladder towards the top species (ourselves). Instead, evolution is more like a branching tree, with each species adapting to its local environment as that environment changes.

Now I come to think of it, wooden ladders and living trees have common ancestors, but ladders have not evolved from trees that are alive now, nor are trees trying to evolve into ladders.

 

[Astrophile]

No matter how many times same question asked, again and again, there is no proof, no experimentation that proves anything like evolution, survival of the fittest by natural selection kind, such as rodents becoming humans, eventually. Nothing. Nowhere.

Is there anything that you would accept as evidence of evolution?

 

[nPeace]

Admittedly, I am not professional researcher, nor professional researcher, but I have done my research.

Same here.

And my research weren’t limited to the Bible or the extra-biblical literature.

My times spent on websites (Timeless Myths & Dark Mirrors of Heaven) did provide me with experiences in investigating sources, chasing down ancient and medieval literature. And much of the genres were myths of other religions, fables, folklores, legends and even some history (such as historical backgrounds of the sources or the sources’ origin).

And though I never join any church, for a number of years, I did believe in the stories of the Bible. What made me doubts the Bible, back in 2000, started with the gospel claims of messianic prophecies, starting with Matthew 1 (Immanuel sign) in comparison with Isaiah 7.

I got time. Tell me about it.
Why let one thing cause you to dismiss one hundred.
Isn't that what some did, who listened to Jesus? John 6:25-69
Do you not see a lesson in these passages.
None of the disciples - including Peter - understood clearly what Jesus meant, but what Peter recognized, was that Jesus' sayings was the truth, based on all the previous evidence. So he was sure that if he stuck around, he would later get clarity... and he did.
With the Bible, we may not understand everything immediately, but having a basic knowledge of Jehovah and what truths we gained, and have at present, we trust that we will get clarity at some point. Proverbs 4:18

Understandably though, you don't get that when associated with false religion. You leave because there is a whole lot that's missing, and things that are present, which should not be.

So really, you cannot tell what I do or don’t understand.

Lol... but you can tell me. Ha ha.
Want to roll that tape back and listen to yourself? Isn't that actually being full of yourself? Aren't you hearing arrogance, and unhealthy pride there?

I have met persons that told me, 'Young man. There is nothing you can tell me about the Bible, that I don't know.' How wrong they were.
I can indeed tell you what you don't understand, but I won't after witnessing your desperate attempts at denying reason.

And I understand enough of literary analysis, that your claims about Genesis 1, are wrong and illogical.

We all make claims, don't we, and you made quite a lot of them... haven't you.
Many think they are logical, when they really aren't. Your assertions weren't logical to me either... but millions, including scientists and educators agree with what I have presented, not primarily because of the logical aspect, but because it is in harmony with the Bible, where one verse, Chapter, or book, does not stand alone.

Using your logic makes a mess of all the texts, but I am sure that suits you just fine.

 

[nPeace]

View attachment 62029

Sheesh.
Sorry for not posting an image I'm not in th mood.

 

[nPeace]

Is there anything that you would accept as evidence of evolution?

Yeah.
Evidence of evolution.
Don't mind me. Carry on.

 

[ChristineM]

Sheesh.
Sorry for not posting an image I'm not in th mood.

Jolly good

 

[John53]

Yeah.
Evidence of evolution.
Don't mind me. Carry on.

The fossil record. No need to thank me.

 

[nPeace]

The fossil record. No need to thank me.

Of course there isn't... any need, that is.

 

[John53]

Of course there isn't... any need, that is.

You're welcome

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fossil record. No need to thank me.

That and all the other evidence can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

 

[John53]

That and all the other evidence can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Yep but at least he got an answer to his question and has some evidence to research.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep but at least he got an answer to his question and has some evidence to research.

I hope that happens. I have my doubts.

 

[John53]

I hope that happens. I have my doubts.

There's a greater chance I will win lotto tonight and I don't even have a ticket.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We are back here again, and I see you are still posting that...

I hope you stick around this time and don't jet without saying 'yeah' or 'nay'.
At least say something like, 'I agree' or 'I disagree', before leaving. Okay?

We know that humans 'interbreed', so tracing 'bloodlines' in humans is a no-brainer. Unless of course, there are certain factors involved which makes DNA evidence unreliable.... making your claim a myth.
DNA Is NOT Infallible.

//facepalm

Did you actually read that article?
It's not talking about determining common ancestry.
It literally has NOTHING to do with the point I raised.

Besides that...
“DNA testing only reveals a general ethnic breakdown that changes over time, as the science becomes further refined," says Joshua Taylor, president of the New York Genealogical & Biographical Society. It "might identify that two individuals share a common ancestor within a certain number of generations, but research is still needed to identify who that common ancestor might be."

And ancestral math is messy. The number of ancestors we have increases exponentially, not linearly — more like a meshed web than a branched family tree, says the geneticist Adam Rutherford. If we went back a thousand years, each of us would have over a trillion direct ancestors, which is more than all the humans who have ever lived. This paradox exists because, as Rutherford writes: "Pedigrees begin to fold in on themselves a few generations back.“ Meaning "you can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over".
Source

This one is dealing with populations that aren't genetically isolated from one another and then trying to find out if you are a direct descended of one particular specific bloodline that goes back a few thousand years, which again has nothing to do with the point raised.

However, let's pretend that those factors and limitations don't exist.

No need to pretend, it has nothing to do with the point.

Let's agree that being able to use DNA to identify individuals, bloodlines, infer familial ties, etc. can be done with 99.87% 'accuracy'.

Well, it can. This is why one does a DNA test to see if one is or is not the father of a certain child.

Yes, we have human ancestors, but we already knew that, didn't we? Besides that, beyond these 'bloodlines' what are the facts about common ancestry?

Plenty.
Like how we share thousands of ERV's with chimps.
A little less with gorilla's.
Less still with oerang oetangs.
Less still with lions.
The closer related, the more shared ERV's. The further related, the less shared ERV's.

And that's just one type of marker.

Then there's stuff like human chromosome 2, which is a fused one. And when split at the fusion site, we find chromosome 13 that the chimp has and which we are "missing". Off course, it isn't missing: it's fused with chromosome 2.

And on and on.

Phylogenetic tree
Limitations
Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.

So what you are saying is that DNA analysis is hard and that there are factors to take in mind which can create difficulties - and that molecular biologists are aware of what these factors are and how they can be recognized.

You're not telling me anything I didn't already know.
But you don't seem aware that what you are quoting, is actually validating my point and not yours.

It's the same as with geology.
It would be neat if we could just go anywhere in the world, dig down and literally "dig through history".
But it's not that simple. Plenty of tectonic and other geological activity can mess with these structures.
And geologists know about those also and are able to recognize them, meaning that they know when a structure is reliable for such study and when it isn't and account for it.

Hilariously, young earth creationists tend to point to such difficulties as well and like to pretend, just like you do here, that therefor it is all unreliable from start to finish.

The epitome of intellectual dishonesty, in other words.




I'm skipping the rest, because it's the same nonsense over and over.
You projecting your ignorance coupled with your dogmatic beliefs that literally require you to not accept the science of evolution and trying to raise objections that aren't valid at all by engaging in strawmen, misunderstanding, etc.


So yeah..... nothing new under the sun. Same old, same old.

 

[Astrophile]

Yeah.
Evidence of evolution.
Don't mind me. Carry on.

What do you make of the genetic and anatomical similarities between humans and the other great apes? What do you make of the fact that dinosaurs and birds are the only animals that possess feathers? What do you make of the fact that marsupial mammals are restricted to Australia and South America and the fact that the australopithecines lived only in Africa, the same continent as chimpanzees, gorillas and early members of the genus Homo? Are these facts not evidence of evolution?