What does the fossil record say?

[Primordial Annihilator]

Not strictly true, humans did descend from monkeys (and apes) just not any living species of monkey (or ape). Our distant ancestors were monkeys.

No you see we do not descend from the group called monkeys...we descended from the ancestors of monkeys and apes...it is however fairly accurate to say we are members of the ape family...taxonomy eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Hominidae

 

[Alceste]

Not strictly true, humans did descend from monkeys (and apes) just not any living species of monkey (or ape). Our distant ancestors were monkeys.

I think it was more of a lemur-like thing, wasn't it?

 

[outhouse]

I think it was more of a lemur-like thing, wasn't it?

yes millions of years before the ape like ancenstor

 

[David M]

No you see we do not descend from the group called monkeys...we descended from the ancestors of monkeys and apes...it is however fairly accurate to say we are members of the ape family...taxonomy eh?

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apes are also monkeys according to taxonomy.

Because both infraorders Platyrrhines and Catarrhines contain species that are monkeys that means that they must share an ancestor (who was a haplorrhine) that is also a monkey, that ancestor must have been before the Platyrrhine/Catarrhine split otherwise you could not have monkeys existing in 2 different infraorders, this means that all Catarrhines are monkeys which means that all apes are monkeys because apes evolved when the Catarrhines split into the Cercopithecoidea and the Homonoidea some 25 million years ago.

The only way that apes are not monkeys is if the Cercopithecoidea (Old World Monkeys) are also not monkeys.

Here's a more detailed explanation.

[youtube]4A-dMqEbSk8[/youtube]
YouTube - Turns out we DID come from monkeys!

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Apes are also monkeys according to taxonomy.

Here's a more detailed explanation.

[youtube]4A-dMqEbSk8[/youtube]
YouTube - Turns out we DID come from monkeys!

Well apes and monkeys are very similar creatures...apes just lack tails.

But we are not descended from any living group of monkey or ape alive today..they are entirely modern like us...what would be accurate david is to say we and the rest of the apes descended from monkey like animals...I could live with that

 

[David M]

Well apes and monkeys are very similar creatures...apes just lack tails.

But we are not descended from any living group of monkey or ape alive today..they are entirely modern like us...what would be accurate david is to say we and the rest of the apes descended from monkey like animals...I could live with that

What is accurate is to say that humans are not descended from any living species of ape or monkey.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

What is accurate is to say that humans are not descended from any living species of ape or monkey.

Too much empthasis is placed on names...what we call a monkey of whatever species is not the same as the monkey like creature that they and we evolved from.

''scientifically speaking, monkeys are paraphyletic (not a single coherent group) and Old World monkeys are actually more closely related to the apes than they are to the New World monkeys.''

Monkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[painted wolf]

I think you two are arguing past each other....

Yes we are evolved from a modern group of apes... the Hominini (the group that includes the chimp, bonobo, humans and our ancestors)

No we are not evolved from any modern species of apes.... they evolved from the some of same ancestors (as well as their own unique ancestors) as we did.

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I think you two are arguing past each other....

Yes we are evolved from a modern group of apes... the Hominini (the group that includes the chimp, bonobo, humans and our ancestors)

No we are not evolved from any modern species of apes.... they evolved from the same ancestors as we did.

wa:do

Well either way what she (PW) said...

 

[DeistPrimate]

Don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. The man is a PhD PHYSICS professor.
How did you manage to miss that?
All the more to his credit. His selflessness is manifest.
I have to do this again:
This man was mentioned to show that accepting the Bible's POV does not amount to a rejection of science as Autodidact alleges.

This is of course the old classic creationist use of the fallacy of appeal to authority
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Intelligence is specific not general, just because a person has succeeded in some specific field doesn't mean their opinions regarding other unrelated fields hold any greater weight than the man on the street

 

[David M]

Too much empthasis is placed on names...what we call a monkey of whatever species is not the same as the monkey like creature that they and we evolved from.

''scientifically speaking, monkeys are paraphyletic (not a single coherent group) and Old World monkeys are actually more closely related to the apes than they are to the New World monkeys.''

Monkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with cladistics you should not form paraphyletic groups where species of those groups are still in existence. Clades should always be monophyletic.

 

[painted wolf]

I wouldn't let a physicist perform an operation.... why should I expect him to understand biology?

I'm a biologist, I can't tell you about astrophysics.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

This is of course the old classic creationist use of the fallacy of appeal to authority
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Intelligence is specific not general, just because a person has succeeded in some specific field doesn't mean their opinions regarding other unrelated fields hold any greater weight than the man on the street

You are way out in left field. Nobody's appealing to any kind of human authority.You and Autodidact insist that to accept the Bible's point of view is to reject science. I am telling you it is not!
The important thing here is:
Is Alton Williams, PhD Physics, a scientist or not?
Is Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka a scientist or not?
Here's another one:
PAULA KINCHELOE
(“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell”)

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.
As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God."
Is this person a scientist or not?
And what about this one:
ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS
(“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws”)

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings."
Is this person a scientist or not?

And then there's this interesting one:
WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
(“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”)

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."
What evidence is there that a kind and compassionate creator watches over the earth? - Yahoo! Answers

To reject evolution is not to reject science. There are many employed scientists who also believe in a creator of animate life just the way it is.
I would like you and Autodidact to show me why these people are not scientists and in what way they have rejected science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A 1987 estimate found that about 700 Earth and Life scientists gave credence to "creation-science".
That is, 700 out of the 480,000 Earth and Life scientists, or .146% give any support to Biblical creationism and the "science" behind it.
According the the United States National Academy for Sciences, creation-science "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life, are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own"
In 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, signed an amicus curiae brief, asking the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).

Source

So, yes, there are scientist, and others in science fields that hold to a literal reading of the Bible. And organizations like the Watchtower Society and the Discovery institute love to find them and trot them out to show "real scientists" who find flaws in biological evolution, or who find no conflict between their beliefs and science.

In contrast to that .146% of Life and Earth scientists who, in 1987, accepted Biblical Literal Creationism, and informal study by Astronomer J. Allen Hynek found that about 11% of Astronomers he interviewed reported UFO sightings.


Source

 

[Autodidact]

You are way out in left field. Nobody's appealing to any kind of human authority.You and Autodidact insist that to accept the Bible's point of view is to reject science. I am telling you it is not!

I never said anything of the kind. You said you do not base your beliefs on science. I acknowledge that. There is nothing more to discuss. YOu do not base your beliefs on science, and they are anti-scientific. I think science is the best way to learn about the natural world, which is why I accept ToE. You believe that Christian mythology is the best way, so you reject it. I merely find it bizarre that you do so on a computer, that's all.

The important thing here is:
Is Alton Williams, PhD Physics, a scientist or not?
Is Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka a scientist or not?
Here's another one:
PAULA KINCHELOE
(“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell&#8221

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.
As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God."
Is this person a scientist or not?

Apparently not. From what I can tell, she appears to be a graduate student in anthropology at Emory University.

However, you do realize that believing in God is not in any way the same thing as rejecting ToE, right?

And what about this one:
ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS
(“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws&#8221

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings."
Is this person a scientist or not?

He's certainly not a Biologist, which is the only relevant science here.

To reject evolution is not to reject science.

Yes, it is. If you use the scientific method, you get ToE. The only way to reject it is to reject the scientific method.

I'm guessing you cannot name twenty working biologists who reject it. It is the leading, consensus, mainstream, foundational theory in Biology. No evolution, no modern biology.

There are many employed scientists who also believe in a creator of animate life just the way it is.

There may be, but there are not many employed biologists who reject ToE.

I would like you and Autodidact to show me why these people are not scientists and in what way they have rejected science.

They are not biologists, nor has it been shown that they reject ToE.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Let's put the whole "this and this scientist is somewhat vaguely supporting Creationism/ID, especially if we misrepresent their views a little" ball to rest once and for all.

Project Steve currently has 1151 scientists named Steve who supports the following statement:

'Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.'

Name-tallying is terribly silly and childish (not to mention an appeal to authority, which makes it a fallacy) but if you want to play this game, Creationism/ID is hereby beat down. Severely.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your beginning to sound like a theist.

There is nothing wrong with being - or sounding like - a theist. Then again, nor is it any justification for irrational behavior either.

 

[DeistPrimate]

You are way out in left field. Nobody's appealing to any kind of human authority.You and Autodidact insist that to accept the Bible's point of view is to reject science. I am telling you it is not!
The important thing here is:
Is Alton Williams, PhD Physics, a scientist or not?
Is Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka a scientist or not?
Here's another one:
PAULA KINCHELOE
(“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell&#8221

To reject evolution is not to reject science. There are many employed scientists who also believe in a creator of animate life just the way it is.
I would like you and Autodidact to show me why these people are not scientists and in what way they have rejected science.

And for every person working in a scientific field who rejects evolution how many do you think I can come up with who accept it?

You obviously ARE indulging in the fallacy of appeal to authority. When we give creationists examples of evidence it's just that - evidence - do you see us listing PhDs who 'accept' evolution needing to go outside fields related to evolution to scrape up more than 2 or 3 names? No

WHY these people not accept evolution is all that matters. All three of these people have their names listed as illuminaries at creationist websites like T-V which also list such people as

Isaac Newton Vail (1840 - 1912) Isaac Newton Vail is the Father of the 'vapor canopy' idea. He was instrumental in various 'flood geology' models. Vail was a Pennsylvania Quaker schoolteacher and oil and gas prospector.
Many of those listed at such sites are antiquated sources to say the least, most don't actually hold advanced degrees in fields related to biology. Those few who do, like Michael Behe, actually accept most of evolutionary theory even common descent and are misquoted by YECs.

As usual, creationist sources are intellectually dishonest.

 

[RedOne77]

You are way out in left field. Nobody's appealing to any kind of human authority.You and Autodidact insist that to accept the Bible's point of view is to reject science. I am telling you it is not!

To be more specific, to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible is to reject what we have learned through science. One cannot both accept a literal understanding of the Bible and modern science at the same time. There are, however, many people who accept modern science and accept a non-literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Danmac]

There is nothing wrong with being - or sounding like - a theist.

There is if you are a non theist, like the person I was referring to.