The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

A variation in a virus doesn't somehow prove that we evolve from a single celled organism.
It's still just a variation in one kind of virus.

Humans are a variation of primate.

 

[ppp]

A variation in a virus doesn't somehow prove that we evolve from a single celled organism.
It's still just a variation in one kind of virus.

Isn't that statement just a red herring? You don't even believe that we are one of the five extant species of Great apes, now do you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you just another animal?

Here's a biological definition of the word "animal":

Animals can be distinguished from other living things by the combination of three features: 1) they are unable to make their own food; 2) they have multiple cells; and each cell has a nucleus and other specialized structures called organelles. Scientifically put, animals are heterotrophic, multicellular organisms with eukaryotic cells.

Could you point out how humans don't fit that definition?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Changing doesn't make one into a different kind of creature

In evolution, there is no such thing as "changing into a different kind of creature".

The common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate. Both humans and chimps remain primates. So will their off spring.
The common ancestor of humans and cats was a mammal. Both humans and cats remain mammals. So will their off spring.
The common ancestor of humans and parrots was a vertebrate. Both humans and parrots remain vertebrates.
The common ancestor of all animals, was a multicellular eukaryote. All animals remain multi-cellular eukaryotes.

It's the law of monophy. You can't outgrow your ancestry.
Your ancestors forever remain your ancestors. And your DNA reads like a track record of all your ancestors.
It's how we know that humans are closer related to chimps then to cats. To cats then to birds. To birds then to fish. Etc.

We were created as humans from the start, not from any other creature.

The facts of reality disagree. And when the facts of reality don't agree with a priori beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Humans are a variation of primate.

Prove it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course we aren't apes.. and no one has demonstrated conclusively that we are.

Isn't that statement just a red herring? You don't even believe that we are one of the five extant species of Great apes, now do you?

 

[ppp]

Of course we aren't apes.. and no one has demonstrated conclusively that we are.

That is a very strange sentence. What do you think that it means to be "demonstrated conclusively that we are [apes]"? What would demonstrating that entail?

 

[gnostic]

Lol, if they do change with the time they are worthless. They always were meant to go beyond teaching and into living.

The fact that they don't change makes them worse than worthless. It makes them inimical.

Well, if you want a God who is stylish and changes with human whims you want yourself obviously. And since you cannot control anything, what good is a god like that?

Deities were invented by humans during ancient times, to make them being creators of nature, including life and especially creation of humans, because they obviously have no understanding of what nature is, nor how it work - no understanding of astronomy, no understanding of Earth science and no understanding of biology.

So Creation myths were invented by different ancient cultures and civilizations.

And the creation stories in the Bible Genesis is no different from other cultures, and their understanding about nature relied on superstitions - belief in something supernatural deity that can create something “natural”.

To date, there have been no evidence to support anything supernatural, nor that supernatural can create nature (natural phenomena). God can everything, is no different from other myths of other cultures, all based on superstitions.

In Genesis 2, god created a living adult human male (Adam) from non-living (lifeless) dust.

You repeatedly ask @Policy and @TagliatelliMonster “to prove” that humans are apes, are animals, and they have each done so.

You were asking for proofs - when you “prove it” - you didn’t ask for evidence. Proof and evidence are the same things.

Evidence is something physical that can be observed, measured, tested. It required observations like test results from some experiments. In experiments, you would learn about the nature of physical or natural phenomena, including information about the properties of the phenomena, and the quantitative information, such s quantities and measurements.

Proof is merely statement that are logical, like mathematical equations. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists would attempt to prove the equations by trying to solve the equations. Find solutions to mathematical problems is what proving all about, using logic.

Logic isn’t evidence, mathematical equations aren’t evidence, and proofs are not evidence.

So since you have only asked TagliatelliMonster and Policy “to prove it”, they have given you some logical examples already.

Now, if you ask for evidence, that would be different stories.

But in any case, their proofs are based on observational evidence, because all animals have eukaryotic cells, and that’s including humans. All humans are tetrapods (have having four limbs) and vertebrates (have vertebrae), like all mammals, birds and most reptiles (I wrote “most”, because snakes have no limbs, but all evidence support that snakes are closely related to the extant and extinct lizards). All apes (including humans) are mammals, but not all mammals are apes.

But anyway, since you have asked others “to prove it”, then I would ask the same from you.

1. Can you prove (using logic) humans were made from lifeless dust?
2. Can you show evidence that dust can magically transform into living human?
3. Can you even prove that god exist?

And btw, the Hebrew Genesis was a late comer to write about creation, since there are no older version of creation myth, predating the 6th century BCE.

Ancient Canaanite (of Middle and Late Bronze Age, meaning the 2nd millennium BCE) creation myth existed, but it’s missing creation of humans, and there are no evidence to support that the ancient Canaanite have any myths concerning the Flood.

So the Jews of the 1st millennium BCE, must have borrowed creation and flood myths from Mesopotamia, from either the Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian myths.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course we aren't apes.. and no one has demonstrated conclusively that we are.

Isn't that statement just a red herring? You don't even believe that we are one of the five extant species of Great apes, now do you?

not. Even. Close.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You repeatedly ask @Policy and @TagliatelliMonster “to prove” that humans are apes, are animals, and they have each done so.

Not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course we aren't apes.. and no one has demonstrated conclusively that we are.
not. Even. Close.

Apes are primates. Primates are mammals that share the following characteristics:

• hair instead of fur
• fingernails instead of claws
• opposable thumbs
• higher brain-to-body size ratio, high level of intelligence
• prehensility (ability to grasp with fingers and/or toes)
• padded digits with fingerprints
• binocular vision i.e. both eyes focus on one object (depth perception)
• reduced olfactory sense and dependent on vision more than smell

Could you point out which of these criteria doesn't apply to humans?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prove it.

Fossils that fit comparative anatomy, geographic distribution, phylogenetics, DNA tracking of extant humans, ages

Fused human chromosome that when split at the fusion site, reveals "missing" chromosome 13 from chimp DNA

And literally hundreds of thousands of genetic markers that can be traced through phylogenetics.


It's as certain that you share ancestors with the other great apes as it is that you share ancestors with your cousin.

 

[metis]

Humans are a variation of primate.

Prove it.

Of course we aren't apes.. and no one has demonstrated conclusively that we are

Here:
Primates are classified as the strepsirrhines (lit. 'twisted-nostriled') and the haplorhines (lit. 'simple-noses'). Strepsirrhines include the lemurs, galagos, and lorisids, while haplorhines include the tarsiers and the simians (apes and monkeys). Simians (lit. 'snub-noses') can be further reduced to the platyrrhines (lit. 'flat-noses'), or New World monkeys, and the catarrhines (lit. 'narrow-noses'), which are Old World monkeys and apes (including humans)... -- Primate - Wikipedia

 

[Wildswanderer]

Here:
Primates are classified as the strepsirrhines (lit. 'twisted-nostriled') and the haplorhines (lit. 'simple-noses'). Strepsirrhines include the lemurs, galagos, and lorisids, while haplorhines include the tarsiers and the simians (apes and monkeys). Simians (lit. 'snub-noses') can be further reduced to the platyrrhines (lit. 'flat-noses'), or New World monkeys, and the catarrhines (lit. 'narrow-noses'), which are Old World monkeys and apes (including humans)... -- Primate - Wikipedia

Um so? Someone made up a classification and added people to it. And I thought you had me on ignore.

 

[gnostic]

Um so? Someone made up a classification and added people to it. And I thought you had me on ignore.

Um, so. Someone made up the stories of Genesis and Exodus, and they weren’t written by Moses.

Someone copied the Babylonian creation and flood stories and wrote their versions in Genesis, stories that never happened.

And someone made up story about creating the first man from non-living dust.

And...you still haven’t answer my questions:

1. Can you prove man is made of dust?
2. Can you prove god exist?

 

[ppp]

Um so? Someone made up a classification and added people to it. And I thought you had me on ignore.

You are confused. It is the set of characteristics that great apes have. Humans are in that set because we have those same characteristics. Humans are in their own subset because humans have additional characteristics. Just like chimps are in their own subset because they have additional characteristics.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are confused. It is the set of characteristics that great apes have. Humans are in that set because we have those same characteristics. Humans are in their own subset because humans have additional characteristics. Just like chimps are in their own subset because they have additional characteristics.

Common features equal a common creator, claiming a common ancestor is purely speculation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Um, so. Someone made up the stories of Genesis and Exodus, and they weren’t written by Moses.

Someone copied the Babylonian creation and flood stories and wrote their versions in Genesis, stories that never happened.

And someone made up story about creating the first man from non-living dust.

And...you still haven’t answer my questions:

1. Can you prove man is made of dust?
2. Can you prove god exist?

Science doesn't prove anything by definition, so why would I have to prove anything?

 

[ppp]

Common features equal a common creator, claiming a common ancestor is purely speculation.

You have made two separate claims there, and I see neither reason nor evidence presented to back either one of them up. So, no. I reject both of your claims.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't care.

You have made two separate claims there, and I see neither reason nor evidence presented to back either one of them up. So, no. I reject both of your claims.