Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Jim]

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?

Well played!

 

[YoursTrue]

No chimps did not evolve into humans. But chimps and humans both evolved from a common ancestor. And that common ancestor was an ape also.

OK, in the future I'll try to remember to say that humans evolved from an ape. Is that good enough?

 

[Jim]

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.

ROTFL! Maybe you’ve never heard of neo-Darwinism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I told you, I don’t play that game. My online games are WoW and some phone games.

Then you really cannot complain if people claim that you are dishonest. An honest person either supports his claims or when he realizes that he cannot withdraws them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, in the future I'll try to remember to say that humans evolved from an ape. Is that good enough?

Better, but we did not evolve "from" since we still are apes.

Tell me, are you a mammal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ROTFL! Maybe you’ve never heard of neo-Darwinism.

You appear to be very very confused. "Neo-Darwinism" is simply a refinement of Darwin's theory. No one claims that Darwin was absolutely correct. There was a lot that was not known at that time so of course Darwin got quite a bit wrong. You appear to be approaching this topic as a theist and not as a scientist.

Darwin did not know about genes. Mendel's original work was lost for quite some time. Neo-Darwinism only applies Mendel's genetics to the theory of evolution. Theories improve over time. That does not mean that scientists deny the work of Darwin.

 

[Jim]

You appear to be very very confused. "Neo-Darwinism" is simply a refinement of Darwin's theory.

“Refinement.” Do you actually know what Darwin’s theory was?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well again, not an expert on these things, but on the subject of human evolution, studies show that facial characteristics like noses can be passed on, changing in essence the genetic structure. I don't think this means, however, (not sure of the majority of 'expert' opinions) that chimpanzees morphed eventually after passing through a few stages, into humans. But it is possible for these 'humanly' genetic changes in things like -- skin color -- nose structure and so forth. Chimps, to the best of my knowledge, remain chimps and don't micro or macroevolve to another form.

You have that correct anyway. Chimpanzees have not morphed into humans. Humans, bonobos, chimpanzees and the other great apes share a common ancestry. This is supported by evidence from molecular biology, the fossil record, geology, genomics, genetics and morphology among other lines of evidence.

Chimps are evolving their own way, but not to say they are guiding their own evolution. That is the role of natural selection and any artificial selection that humans might apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Refinement.” Do you actually know what Darwin’s theory was?

Yes, do you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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. 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.

Changes from one generation to the subsequent are not what is asserted by the theory of evolution. To my knowledge, the only people that ever make that claim are creationists that really have no clue about biological science, evolution or the theory that explains evolution.

Again, humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. If you expect to see them morph into another species that is never going to happen. Living things evolve slowly over time. While speciation has been observed, it is doubtful that we will observe it in chimpanzees unless some other mechanism comes into play, like hybridization.

Have you actually read any of the science concerning biological evolution or are you just going by what you heard at church or on some religious website? I recall you mentioning that you studied it in school. Nothing you are referring to is taught in any school that I know of. I was taught in a public school and I recall a good deal of that. It did not involve one species giving birth to another species. That does not happen and is not part of the theory.

 

[Jim]

Then you really cannot complain if people claim that you are dishonest. An honest person either supports his claims or when he realizes that he cannot withdraws them.

There’s been some unfriendliness in my posts to you. Sorry.

I’m not making any claims. I’m just saying how it looks to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you saying that the idea of a common ancestor between a member of one species and a member of another species explains differences between them, better than not thinking that they have a common ancestor?

How life first appears, and how evolution happens. For example, one similarity between species is that they contain carbon compounds. I don’t think that’s because they have a common ancestor. Do you? To me, a better explanation is that carbon compounds are required for life to happen. Other similarities between species could also be explained as a result of how evolution happens. The reason for large animals all having a head and four limbs could be because that turned out to be better for survival than not having a head, or having more or less than four limbs, and not because they have a common ancestor.

We do not know that life cannot originate using the chemistry of silica. The carbon basis of life on Earth may be less strong evidence for common origins, though it could be the result of initial conditions favoring the genesis of carbon life over some other kind.

Have you ever wondered if biologists have not thought the same questions that continually come up to challenge common descent and the theory of evolution? Look how thoughtful Darwin was in formulating challenges to his own theory. If there were animals that had a different body plan with a brain in their abdomen and no head, for instance, and 6, 7, 8, 9 or more limbs, don't you think we would have found fossils for animals like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s been some unfriendliness in my posts to you. Sorry.

I’m not making any claims. I’m just saying how it looks to me.

Fine but even that can be a bit much. If you do ask questions about how things look to you they will probably be answered. But if you make statements then people will demand that you support those claims.

Getting back evolution. There is a reason that scientists do not tend to use terms like "Darwinism". They don't call the theory of gravity as "Einsteinism". Instead they refer to the actual work being discussed rather than the person that first came up with the idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We do not know that life cannot originate using the chemistry of silica. The carbon basis of life on Earth may be less strong evidence for common origins, though it could be the result of initial conditions favoring the genesis of carbon life over some other kind.

Have you ever wondered if biologists have not thought the same questions that continually come up to challenge common descent and the theory of evolution? Look how thoughtful Darwin was in formulating challenges to his own theory. If there were animals that had a different body plan with a brain in their abdomen and no head, for instance, and 6, 7, 8, 9 or more limbs, don't you think we would have found fossils for animals like that.

Though to be fair silicon based life probably could not arise on the surface of the Earth. Which by an amazing circumstance is where we live.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Refinement.” Do you actually know what Darwin’s theory was?

At the time Darwin published genetics was essentially unknown and population biology was not a thing of another 60 or 70 years. The theory that Darwin posited was reformulated to include the evidence of those two new disciplines. It is not surprising that those evidences fit right in.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Though to be fair silicon based life probably could not arise on the surface of the Earth. Which by an amazing circumstance is where we live.

I agree. It would have required some very different initial conditions and continuing conditions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, let's get down to basics. Which animal prior to what you would call the human animal evolved into what you would call the human animal?

What is the significance of this question? Keeping in mind that I have heard this question raised 100's of times and with a follow up that I have heard an equal number of times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ROTFL! Maybe you’ve never heard of neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwin synthesis is the current version of the theory of evolution. The original theory published by Darwin was revised--it can be expressed as rejected or replaced--but that does not indicate that scientists found a completely different theory and there was complete replacement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Accepting Christ is not contingent on a literal Genesis.

 

[Jim]

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.

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.

Sure, why not?

I wouldn’t be trying to convince you, or to substantiate it. I would only be trying to explain how it looks to me. I might be seeing it all wrong. I wouldn’t want to do it in this thread.