Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Subduction Zone]

What I’m seeing now is a system of smoke and revolving mirrors to use evolution theory as a Trojan horse to stigmatize anyone who doesn’t believe that all living creatures have a common living ancestor.

That is only because you are reasoning irrationally.

You should ask yourself why are you afraid of reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

is
Then by the same standard you should accept evolution. There are countless Christians that accept evolution. One does not need to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

Let me put it this way -- not changing the subject, but since you mentioned myths of the Bible, etc, to be a Christian -- would you say that Christians should believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God born to a virgin? Since you brought that up.

 

[Jose Fly]

I must go back to the idea that chimps are currently staying as chimps. They've been around supposedly for many, many years. Yet still stay as chimps with no discernible change, sorry if I don't use your terminology.

We've been studying them for what, 100 years or so? What exactly were you expecting in that time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s okay. I want to say again that I’m grateful for your thoughtful and generous responses to my questions and comments. This turned out to be a lot more educational and fun for me than I would have thought.

But since you refuse to even learn what the scientific method is I do not see you progressing very far.

Trust me, the scientific method does not refute God. It may refute incorrect versions of God, but it does not refute God himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me put it this way -- not changing the subject, but since you mentioned myths of the Bible, etc, to be a Christian -- would you say that Christians should believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God born to a virgin? Since you brought that up.

There is no need to even believe the virgin birth myth. That was never a prophecy in the first place.

 

[Jose Fly]

That’s okay. I want to say again that I’m grateful for your thoughtful and generous responses to my questions and comments. This turned out to be a lot more educational and fun for me than I would have thought.

Well that's good. I still have no idea what your point was back there.

 

[Jim]

Er um.....what?

I’ll try to explain it to you if you would like me to, but it might not be worth the time and effort for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, scientists know this since they can test this concept. Learning the difference between knowledge and belief makes it easier to see why the theory of evolution is so well accepted.

and your final statement does not seem to make any sense.

Not all scientists accept the present-day theory of evolution, including the Darwinian theory. Perhaps many do accept Darwin's theory, do you think so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ll try to explain it to you if you would like me to, but it might not be worth the time and effort for you.

You made what appears to be a false accusation against those that you disagree with. You should either be ready to defend it or retract it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I’ll try to explain it to you if you would like me to, but it might not be worth the time and effort for you.

Sure, why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not all scientists accept the present-day theory of evolution, including the Darwinian theory. Perhaps many do accept Darwin's theory, do you think so?

Very very few scientists reject it. In the sciences where one has to understand it the rejection rate is a fraction of a percent. An appeal to popularity fails.

And those that oppose it can't seem to find any evidence that opposes the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

We've been studying them for what, 100 years or so? What exactly were you expecting in that time?

lol. I like that one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Very very few scientists reject it. In the sciences where one has to understand it the rejection rate is a fraction of a percent. An appeal to popularity fails.

And those that oppose it can't seem to find any evidence that opposes the theory.

I suppose eventually they'll figure out abiogenesis. (Yes, I laughed.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Very very few scientists reject it. In the sciences where one has to understand it the rejection rate is a fraction of a percent. An appeal to popularity fails.

And those that oppose it can't seem to find any evidence that opposes the theory.

The thing they come up with is the impossibility of going beyond boundaries, except by some form of unproven genetic change. There are, of course, life forms that have gone extinct in the course of present history. This does not prove evolution. It proves that some life forms go out of existence.

 

[Jose Fly]

lol. I like that one.

Well? What exactly were you expecting?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose eventually they'll figure out abiogenesis. (Yes, I laughed.)

Why would you laugh? Now you sound like early deniers of powered flight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing they come up with is the impossibility of going beyond boundaries, except by some form of unproven genetic change. There are, of course, life forms that have gone extinct in the course of present history. This does not prove evolution. It proves that some life forms go out of existence.

What boundaries? Creationists have never found any.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems that scientists believe the 'evolution' from apes (including chimps and other non-humans) to humans did not happen with two ape-like ancestors suddenly changing into unique beings, one male and one female.

Correct. That is NOT how evolution happens.

Evolution happens to *populations* and over several generations. At each stage, the population looks similar to the previous generation, but the small differences add up over several generations (usually, at least thousands of generations) to produce large scale differences.

Is that how you understand the so-called evolving of humans from chimpanzees and other ape types? (Sorry, but don't know exact terminology now that the majority of scientists use.)
Not speaking of going back, but somehow the apes are not moving to another state with discernible evidence lately.

Well, again, these changes are over many generations. So, a mere 10,000 years is usually not enough to see any major changes. In fact, the *fast* speciation proposed by punctuated equilibrium takes around 50,000 years for typical mammals.

 

[Polymath257]

There is a vast difference in the thinking, speaking and writing ability of apes vs. humans. And what is the reason, would you say, that chimps or humans are not evolving now? Chimps supposedly have been around a much longer time than present-day humans, yet still stay chimps. Why do you think that is so?

If you go back a couple of million years, the 'chimps' at that time were not the chimps of today. Yes, they have changed over time also. But, again, we are not talking about sudden changes from one generation to the next. We are talking about changes over the course of *at least* thousands of generations.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't say you said either chimps or humans have stopped evolving. Is there any evidence that chimps or humans are evolving? Start with chimps, please, they're ostensibly older in species than humans, so have a longer time perhaps to evolve. Is there any evidence chimps are evolving?

Yes, for example, the amount of the human overbite has been decreasing over the last few centuries. This is a very *fast* change in evolutionary terms.

We don't have as good of a fossil record of chimps, but we do know that they have changed quite a bit in the last couple of million years. So, yes, they are also evolving.