Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

Yes, the underlying unity of all that is, is the absolute eternal reality.

I find it interesting that the U.N. is warning people we're close to ruining the earth with the rising temperatures. (the underlying unity of it affecting life.) You are probably aware of the scripture which says that God will ruin those who are ruining the earth. So just like God set up the earth for habitation right from the start in the universe, He can also keep the earth going and remove the obstacles.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's like implying that we know nothing on the subject. We know a ton, but there's tons left for us to still investigate.

Both can be true.

The problem with that is that I see we know more than our "closest dna relative," apparently the bonobo or chimpanzee. Now why do I see a problem with that? Because we know more -- lots more. Some will say it's evolution that makes the human brain this way. I no longer think so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with that is that I see we know more than our "closest dna relative," apparently the bonobo or chimpanzee. Now why do I see a problem with that? Because we know more -- lots more. Some will say it's evolution that makes the human brain this way. I no longer think so.

How much better? Do you think that you could beat chimps in a memory test? The odds are fairly high that you would lose:

Chimps beat people in memory task

They are better than us at climbing trees, they have a more impressive bite and they would make a formidable opponent in a fight. But the brain is one area where humans have come to regard themselves as superior to the great apes.

www.theguardian.com

 

[metis]

That's what I mean, human knowledge and understanding is limited generally. And people are not equal, think of a bell curve where the higher evolved are on the leading edge of the curve and the least are the trailing. The education system and msm cater for the average which is the vast bulk of humanity of the crest of the curve.

Sure, but there is only one reality, the different names humans use to represent the one same reality has to do with different cultural experiences of peoples and nations,

I honestly don't know what this has to do with what I posted, so maybe you can connect the dots for me?

 

[metis]

The problem with that is that I see we know more than our "closest dna relative," apparently the bonobo or chimpanzee. Now why do I see a problem with that? Because we know more -- lots more. Some will say it's evolution that makes the human brain this way. I no longer think so.

It's quite obvious that what became our biggest asset as a species was the evolution of our very large brain in proportion to the rest of the ape line, especially our cerebrum. Those who could analyze at a higher level obviously would have an advantage over those who couldn't.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I honestly don't know what this has to do with what I posted, so maybe you can connect the dots for me.

You said, "That's like implying that we know nothing on the subject. We know a ton, but there's tons left for us to still investigate."

Who is we? We as a planetary human race are not equal. Some people know squat and could not care less,, some just believe what the talking heads of the education system and/or main stream media tell them without actually understanding, and others actually realize the truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's quite obvious that what became our biggest asset as a species was the evolution of our very large brain in proportion to the rest of the ape line, especially our cerebrum. Those who could analyze at a higher level obviously would have an advantage over those who couldn't.

I am only guessing here, of course. First let me mention that bonobos and chimpanzees are still here without seeming to be evolving that 'we' can see, isn't that right? I mean their brains are still about the same size they probably were a long time ago. (right?)
But now in the sense of human beings -- they really didn't come from chimpanzees and/or bonobos, did they? But rather, per the theory of evolution, all evolved from a common ancestor, which to the best of my knowledge has not yet been discovered. Would you say that is correct? (Not asking why but if those statements are simply the facts without figuring in the changes by theory.)
(Oh, yes, this thread is about the Big Bang, not brain sizes. Sorry. But anyway...)

 

[metis]

Who is we?

Largely the cosmologists that deal with this daily.

 

[metis]

I am only guessing here, of course. First let me mention that bonobos and chimpanzees are still here without seeming to be evolving that 'we' can see, isn't that right? I mean their brains are still about the same size they probably were a long time ago. (right?)

All life forms appear to have evolved; thus, they undoubtedly have been as well.

But now in the sense of human beings -- they really didn't come from chimpanzees and/or bonobos, did they?

No, as it is VERY likely there is some common ancestor that we're related to.

But rather, per the theory of evolution, all evolved from a common ancestor, which to the best of my knowledge has not yet been discovered.

That is only a hypothesis, thus not considered to be a scientific theory nor an axiom.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Largely the cosmologists that deal with this daily.

That was my point, the cosmologists do not speak for those humans who know more than they, nor I suppose for those who don't have a clue.

 

[metis]

That was my point, the cosmologists do not speak for those humans who know more than they, nor I suppose for those who don't have a clue.

So, you know more about BB Theory than they do?

 

[gnostic]

I am only guessing here, of course. First let me mention that bonobos and chimpanzees are still here without seeming to be evolving that 'we' can see, isn't that right? I mean their brains are still about the same size they probably were a long time ago. (right?)
But now in the sense of human beings -- they really didn't come from chimpanzees and/or bonobos, did they? But rather, per the theory of evolution, all evolved from a common ancestor, which to the best of my knowledge has not yet been discovered. Would you say that is correct? (Not asking why but if those statements are simply the facts without figuring in the changes by theory.)

We are “close” in the sense to chimpanzees in that we shared a “common ancestor”.

This “common ancestor” isn’t a chimpanzee and isn’t a human. But the “common ancestor” would have some of the physical traits of both chimpanzees and humans.

We already have physical evidence of shared ancestry, between humans and chimpanzees, through the DNA of both living species, how “close” we are to each other, in relatedness.

What creationists have failed to grasp and continue to misunderstand, that it is this extinct “common ancestor” that humans and chimpanzees evolve from, the “common ancestor” BEFORE THE DIVERGENCE of the line to the genus Homo and the line to the genus Pan.

The “common ancestor” doesn’t mean we (humans) evolve from the current species of chimpanzees, nor does it means chimpanzees evolved from humans. It is the mystery “common ancestor” that link both sides, some 7 million years ago.

One of the candidates of this mystery “common ancestor” is the species Sahelanthropus tchadensis (of the genus Sahelanthropus).

The samples (evidence) of Sahelanthropus tchadensis was discovered in Chad, dated to the Miocene Epoch, some 7 million years ago. The samples comprised part of the brow ridge and portion of brain case, some pieces of jaw and some teeth. The rest of skeletal body below the skull (meaning no post-cranial skeleton) haven’t been found so far.

But I said “candidate”.

Paleontologists need to find more evidence to determine if this species of Sahelanthropus is directly linked to Homo species or not, and to the Pan species or not. Paleontologists are not sure yet. As I said, they need more evidence, preferably the rest of the body, or better - more fossils of other individuals.

If not, then the search for the missing link would continue.

 

[YoursTrue]

We are “close” in the sense to chimpanzees in that we shared a “common ancestor”.

This “common ancestor” isn’t a chimpanzee and isn’t a human. But the “common ancestor” would have some of the physical traits of both chimpanzees and humans.

We already have physical evidence of shared ancestry, between humans and chimpanzees, through the DNA of both living species, how “close” we are to each other, in relatedness.

What creationists have failed to grasp and continue to misunderstand, that it is this extinct “common ancestor” that humans and chimpanzees evolve from, the “common ancestor” BEFORE THE DIVERGENCE of the line to the genus Homo and the line to the genus Pan.

The “common ancestor” doesn’t mean we (humans) evolve from the current species of chimpanzees, nor does it means chimpanzees evolved from humans. It is the mystery “common ancestor” that link both sides, some 7 million years ago.

One of the candidates of this mystery “common ancestor” is the species Sahelanthropus tchadensis (of the genus Sahelanthropus).

The samples (evidence) of Sahelanthropus tchadensis was discovered in Chad, dated to the Miocene Epoch, some 7 million years ago. The samples comprised part of the brow ridge and portion of brain case, some pieces of jaw and some teeth. The rest of skeletal body below the skull (meaning no post-cranial skeleton) haven’t been found so far.

But I said “candidate”.

Paleontologists need to find more evidence to determine if this species of Sahelanthropus is directly linked to Homo species or not, and to the Pan species or not. Paleontologists are not sure yet. As I said, they need more evidence, preferably the rest of the body, or better - more fossils of other individuals.

If not, then the search for the missing link would continue.

They'd have to find all the intermediaries. It cannot be done. Just like speculation can be made re fish to landlubbers but nothing more than that.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, you know more about BB Theory than they do?

You think one of them might really know?

 

[YoursTrue]

All life forms appear to have evolved; thus, they undoubtedly have been as well.

No, as it is VERY likely there is some common ancestor that we're related to.

That is only a hypothesis, thus not considered to be a scientific theory nor an axiom.

In other words, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans evolved from one "common ancestor, " is that right? And I'm not talking about the first whatever before apes.

 

[metis]

The samples (evidence) of Sahelanthropus tchadensis was discovered in Chad, dated to the Miocene Epoch, some 7 million years ago. The samples comprised part of the brow ridge and portion of brain case, some pieces of jaw and some teeth. The rest of skeletal body below the skull (meaning no post-cranial skeleton) haven’t been found so far.

Yes, and that find was so much in what could be the juncture point of both that the primatologists couldn't figure out if it was more an early human or an early chimp in its general characteristics, so they hadn't classified it as either.

 

[metis]

You think one of them might really know?

I note that you didn't answer my question. Maybe do that first and then I'll get back with you.

 

[metis]

In other words, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans evolved from one "common ancestor, " is that right? And I'm not talking about the first whatever before apes.

Not quite because of the branching not likely being uniform. Imagine a tree with branches coming off the trunk but not all at the same level or at the same length.

IOW, evolution is "sloppy", not "uniform".

BTW, I'm still waiting for your objective evidence for God.

 

[gnostic]

They'd have to find all the intermediaries. It cannot be done. Just like speculation can be made re fish to landlubbers but nothing more than that.

There you go again, you are still not understanding the science and the roles of evidence.

Sorry, but i am going to have say this, your conclusion that “they must have all intermediaries”, is utterly and absurdly IGNORANT!

Ignorant because you are letting your bias in your religion clouds any logic you may have.

To have “all the intermediaries”, wouldn’t be achievable in fields of natural sciences, not just in evolutionary biology. You are ABSURDLY DEMANDING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE, PERIOD.

Let say you are tracing your own family tree, and say that you cannot find any more records beyond 20 generations of ancestors on your mother’s side (about 5 centuries), but only 14 generations on your father’s side (3 to 3.5 centuries).

Would that mean your 20th generation ancestor (on your mother’s side) would have no parents and no grandparents of his or her own?

Did your the 20th generation ancestor simply pop into existence without father and mother, without grandparents, great-grandparents, etc?

Plus, each person has two parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and so on. My point is that with each past generations you go back exploring your family tree, the numbers of your ancestors will keep doubling in numbers. I WOULD HIGHLY DOUBT YOU HAVE RECORDS OF EVERY SINGLE ANCESTORS.

The things with tracing family trees, you won’t be following every single branches. There is really no single line, there are many.

And if you are missing knowledge of your ancestors, would you need to resort to supernatural explanations of your own ancestors?

You seriously don’t know how absurd you sound, making ultimatum that “all the intermediaries”.

And just because the picture isn’t complete, it does mean you have to give up on sciences and rely on miracles of nonexistent deity. Science may not always have answers, but is any religion better with answers?

When I look at back what I used to believe, like the Bible, today, I realized just how stupid some of the authors were, like with the book of Job. Whoever wrote Job was a bloody idiot with no understanding of nature; Job relied on the stupid “God did it” to extreme level of backward thinking.

 

[exchemist]

In other words, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans evolved from one "common ancestor, " is that right? And I'm not talking about the first whatever before apes.

Bear in mind that the term "common ancestor" refers to an ancestral population of creatures, not to a single individual.

But yes, if you trace those 3 lines back there will at some point have been a population from which all three are descended, though, as @metis points out, they did not all diverge at the same point (the gorilla family split off first). Here's a diagram: