What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Jose Fly]

You'd help yourself a bit if you could learn that people are apes, or at the least that that is the scientific position, but you're a creationist. That rarely happens. I don't know why that's such an insurmountable impediment here. I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't learn what a theist believes and use language with that. I happens whenever I use the word God or refer to the Christian afterlife or resurrection. I don't believe any of that any more than you believe evolutionary science, but why is it that I can speak to creationists in language compatible with their beliefs, but they rarely can do the same?

If I may....

It's likely because theism and Christianity aren't threats to you, so you're free to learn about them without fear of what might happen if you were to change your mind. That's not the case for a lot of theists/Christians/creationists. As I've often said, from their POV understanding evolutionary biology might lead to it making sense, which might lead to them changing their mind, which could lead to a crisis of faith, and in some cases could even lead to an existential crisis and emotional and social upheaval. So it's far, far safer to never learn it in the first place and not risk any of those outcomes.

It's why you can explain to a creationist what "theory" means in science, that science doesn't deal in "proof", that evolution doesn't equate to atheism, and a host of other basic concepts until you're blue in the face, and a bit later you'll see them repeat the same errors as if you'd never said a thing.

It's not that they're incapable of understanding, it's that they're scared to. As the Jehovah's Witness' website says, "If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose". If a person truly believes that, why would they risk losing all purpose to their life by learning evolutionary biology? Under those terms, their deliberate ignorance is kind of sensible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If I may....

It's likely because theism and Christianity aren't threats to you, so you're free to learn about them without fear of what might happen if you were to change your mind. That's not the case for a lot of theists/Christians/creationists. As I've often said, from their POV understanding evolutionary biology might lead to it making sense, which might lead to them changing their mind, which could lead to a crisis of faith, and in some cases could even lead to an existential crisis and emotional and social upheaval. So it's far, far safer to never learn it in the first place and not risk any of those outcomes.

It's why you can explain to a creationist what "theory" means in science, that science doesn't deal in "proof", that evolution doesn't equate to atheism, and a host of other basic concepts until you're blue in the face, and a bit later you'll see them repeat the same errors as if you'd never said a thing.

It's not that they're incapable of understanding, it's that they're scared to. As the Jehovah's Witness' website says, "If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose". If a person truly believes that, why would they risk losing all purpose to their life by learning evolutionary biology? Under those terms, their deliberate ignorance is kind of sensible.

Agreed. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. The thinking of believers has to be understood not in epistemological term, but psychological ones - what need is being met with this belief if not the need to be correct in one's beliefs?

There's obviously a cognitive bias in play - probably a faith-based confirmation bias that doesn't allow certain ideas in. I'd like to hear @BilliardsBall 's answer. Is he aware that he keeps making the same mistake to his audience, the mistake not being that he is wrong about people not being apes, but that he doesn't seem to know that that is the scientific position?

In his position, if I was unwilling to write "people and other apes," I would write, "I know that you believe that people are apes, but I don't; the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences." Anything but leaving the impression that I was incapable of learning this idea. I would be ashamed that somebody might believe that about me, even when I was a theist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Agreed. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question.

I thought it probably was. The refusal of creationists to learn even the most basic of things is definitely yet another topic that's kinda been done to death.

The thinking of believers has to be understood not in epistemological term, but psychological ones - what need is being met with this belief if not the need to be correct in one's beliefs?

Yup. Years ago, another science advocate would explain that very thing to me whenever I would cite theology as the root issue. He kept telling me "It's even deeper than that; it's mostly just basic psychology". It took me a bit, but eventually I came around to what he was saying.

There's obviously a cognitive bias in play - probably a faith-based confirmation bias that doesn't allow certain ideas in. I'd like to hear @BilliardsBall 's answer. Is he aware that he keeps making the same mistake to his audience, the mistake not being that he is wrong about people not being apes, but that he doesn't seem to know that that is the scientific position?

IMO, it's not so much that he doesn't see it, it's that how he comes across in debates with non-believers isn't a significant concern. Creationists' priorities generally seem to be to defend the faith, keep their own faith intact, and attack the opposing view. "Coming across as informed and rational" hardly ever seems to be important.

In his position, if I was unwilling to write "people and other apes," I would write, "I know that you believe that people are apes, but I don't; the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences." Anything but leaving the impression that I was incapable of learning this idea. I would be ashamed that somebody might believe that about me, even when I was a theist.

Ah, but you're thinking analytically and strategically. Most creationists we encounter in places like this are instead generally reacting and thinking intuitively.

I've been doing a bit of reading on different types of thinking and evaluating information, and it's really helped me better understand this whole debate. As my wife likes to remind me on a regular basis.....Not everyone thinks like you!

 

[gnostic]

Hard for me to take you seriously since you've claimed omniscience:

"But while we can show evidence or prove that humans are actually physical beings that design and create, there are no evidence that God, Creator or Designer are real."

Creationists often use analogies, eg of watches, cars, computer programs, mousetraps, etc, but these things are designed and made of inanimate objects, not of these designed objects are living organisms, these objects are not alive.

The analogies are also using humans as entities of being “designers” and “makers”, but we do know humans really do live, really do exist, and if there are watchmakers, car engineers, computer programmers, you can track them down, to find out where they live, where they work, and any other things about their life, families, where they were educated, etc.

You gather all sorts of records about each individual person, eg birth certificate, qualification, social security number, driver license, passport, etc, all evidence that individual exists.

But how do you show God, Creator or Designer exist? What evidence do have of its existence?

There are no such evidence. You cannot observe, measure or test God, whether he be called Creator or Designer.

So really, the analogies are merely distraction, have no real values in science, because when you are using an analogy, you are comparing two completely unrelated things.

For instance, the famous Watchmaker analogy. This analogy was originally composed in the early 19th century, an analogy about God, not the Intelligent Designer.

But a watch is not life, a watch isn’t a living organism, so the comparison of watches and life, is a False Equivalence. And who do really make watches, humans or God? Once again, more False Equivalence.

Like I said, you can track down a person who do make watches for living, and that person should have a number of records (evidence), and if needs be, meet a real living who make watches for a living. But you cannot do the same for God, because there are no such evidence.

It is no about omniscience, I make no claims that’s have such ability. But judging by the evidence we have humans for their existence, we can safely say humans are “probable”, but the same cannot be said about God.

So people may believe in god, hence he may be “possible”, but the lack of evidence, tell us god’s existence is highly “improbable”.

I go where the physical evidence presented itself, not relying on personal beliefs of people, who believe in the impossible being possible.

And that’s where Special Pleading comes in.

Creationists think that there should be exceptions to the rules when it come to God or Designer, where they can justify their beliefs without evidence for its existence, and yet they (creationists) will demand for evidence on Evolution and on Abiogenesis.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The scientific community and the community of critical thinkers have no problem with evolution. Only the creationists do. The theory is correct.



The machines didn't descend from one another, but the designs of the wheeled ones did (boats have wheels?). Wheeled conveyances and their wheels evolved over time from earlier wheeled conveyances, and their designs help us order them. Wheelbarrows may have been first. Then horses were added (chariots, carts, stagecoaches). Then pedals (bicycles), then steam engines (locomotives), and then cars and their descendants (trucks, tractors, ATVs, golf carts, roller coasters, Martian rovers). Wheels went from stone and wood to metal and rubber. That's evolution too, albeit like languages and religions, cultural rather than biological. Family resemblances allow one to generate a tree of wheeled technology. Airplanes are cars (powered, wheeled conveyances) with wings to lift them up.

Boats are a different phylum.



Is this meant to be an argument against biological evolution generating a tree of life? If so, it's not. The two are analogous. As the number of generations between two species increases, their genetic differences increase. With languages, the longer two languages evolve independently, the less alike they are. The differences help us decide how long ago they branched apart.

You'd help yourself a bit if you could learn that people are apes, or at the least that that is the scientific position. But you're a creationist. That rarely happens. I don't know why that's such an insurmountable impediment here. I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't learn what a theist believes and use language consistent with that. It happens whenever I use the word God or refer to the Christian afterlife or resurrection. I don't believe any of that any more than you believe evolutionary science, but why is it that I can speak to creationists in language compatible with their beliefs, but they rarely can do the same?

You speak without knowledge of who I am--at my core.

"You'd help yourself a bit if you could learn that people are apes, or at the least that that is the scientific position."

My dad taught gifted high school students and I had/have hyperlexia, so I was reading high school/college level biology texts from a tender age.

Let's go with 98% similiarities between people and apes--that's MILLIONS of genetic differences.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Creationists often use analogies, eg of watches, cars, computer programs, mousetraps, etc, but these things are designed and made of inanimate objects, not of these designed objects are living organisms, these objects are not alive.

The analogies are also using humans as entities of being “designers” and “makers”, but we do know humans really do live, really do exist, and if there are watchmakers, car engineers, computer programmers, you can track them down, to find out where they live, where they work, and any other things about their life, families, where they were educated, etc.

You gather all sorts of records about each individual person, eg birth certificate, qualification, social security number, driver license, passport, etc, all evidence that individual exists.

But how do you show God, Creator or Designer exist? What evidence do have of its existence?

There are no such evidence. You cannot observe, measure or test God, whether he be called Creator or Designer.

So really, the analogies are merely distraction, have no real values in science, because when you are using an analogy, you are comparing two completely unrelated things.

For instance, the famous Watchmaker analogy. This analogy was originally composed in the early 19th century, an analogy about God, not the Intelligent Designer.

But a watch is not life, a watch isn’t a living organism, so the comparison of watches and life, is a False Equivalence. And who do really make watches, humans or God? Once again, more False Equivalence.

Like I said, you can track down a person who do make watches for living, and that person should have a number of records (evidence), and if needs be, meet a real living who make watches for a living. But you cannot do the same for God, because there are no such evidence.

It is no about omniscience, I make no claims that’s have such ability. But judging by the evidence we have humans for their existence, we can safely say humans are “probable”, but the same cannot be said about God.

So people may believe in god, hence he may be “possible”, but the lack of evidence, tell us god’s existence is highly “improbable”.

I go where the physical evidence presented itself, not relying on personal beliefs of people, who believe in the impossible being possible.

And that’s where Special Pleading comes in.

Creationists think that there should be exceptions to the rules when it come to God or Designer, where they can justify their beliefs without evidence for its existence, and yet they (creationists) will demand for evidence on Evolution and on Abiogenesis.

Again you are claiming omniscience--you gave bounds for which there MIGHT be evidence of a God and then claim they are nowhere in human history or anywhere in the universe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You speak without knowledge of who I am--at my core.

You wrote, "the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences." How deeply do you think one needs to know you to reject your contention that people are not apes, or that it is a tactical error to write it as fact to people you know believe otherwise?

"You'd help yourself a bit if you could learn that people are apes, or at the least that that is the scientific position." My dad taught gifted high school students and I had/have hyperlexia, so I was reading high school/college level biology texts from a tender age.

But you got the science wrong.

Let's go with 98% similiarities between people and apes--that's MILLIONS of genetic differences.

There you go again. People are apes. It's fine that you keep making the error. It doesn't change much if you ever learn this and start referring to people and non-human apes, and maybe indicate that you consider all apes non-human if that's important for you to note to people who believe otherwise. It's just an interesting phenomenon that you don't and don't seem to be able to even though it would be in your best interest if you are trying to persuade scientifically literate people. You probably saw the discussion between Jose Fly and me about this - why theists have difficulty here. It's also interesting that you had no comment. You're happy to let people speculate about what motivates you and what inhibits you without any input or correction from you.

Also, what was your point? We expect differences between species, the more the longer it's been since their last common ancestor walked the earth or swam the seas. The theory predicts this.

 

[gnostic]

Again you are claiming omniscience--you gave bounds for which there MIGHT be evidence of a God and then claim they are nowhere in human history or anywhere in the universe.

Look, BilliardsBall. It is very clear to me that don’t understand the concept of the use of evidence, which are to TEST an idea, a concept, a model, a hypothesis or a theory.

Personally, I think you don’t want are evidence for, because that would weaken your faith in your religion.

Some theists have no problems accepting evidence that backed up any science models. You, on the other hand, are ones of those who would deny evidence - therefore denying reality - especially if the evidence don’t agree with or don’t support your personal beliefs of your religion.

Religious beliefs for some, are what blind people from accepting reality, because of their personal biases for their scriptures, their messiah (in your case, as you’re a Christian) and for their God.

I am not claiming any omniscience on my part, but you are. I can redirect your claims of omniscience upon yourself.

For instance, your own biases that your scriptures, your messiah & prophets, your god, is a (biased) claim of your own “omniscience”.

First of, “sciences”, here I am referring to Natural Sciences, since this topic is about evolution, therefore about biology; I am excluding Social Sciences, because Social Sciences are not the studies of “nature”.

Second. Sciences don’t concern itself with what are “possible” and what are “impossible”. The possible vs impossible are more arguments found in philosophies or in religions.

Since, sciences relied on EVIDENCE, evidence are testing the model, if the model is PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE.

There are 3 possible outcomes:

(A) The evidence will VERIFY the model, therefore the model is PROBABLE & true.

(B) The evidence will REFUTE the model, therefore the model is IMPROBABLE & false.

(C) The absence of evidence (zero evidence), meaning the model isn’t testable, therefore the model cannot be tested.​

Another name for a concept or model being “untestable” (C) is UNFALSIFIABLE.

Unfalsifiable concept or model, cannot even qualify as being a hypothesis; they are deemed as pseudoscience, speculation, opinion, belief, etc.

C is actually worse than B.

Do you want to know what are untestable, therefore cannot be tested?

I will give you a hint. It start with the prefix - “super”.

Yep. Supernatural. Supernatural pertains to anything that isn’t natural, based on imaginations and fantasies, like miracles, magic, sorcery, psychic powers (eg telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis, etc), afterlife, heaven, hell, purgatory, deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, ghosts, fairies, etc.

None of these are testable.

Oh, yes, I have heard there have been researches and there have being tests done on people who were claiming to have some sorts of psychic powers - these researches and studies are called “parapsychology”, but they have failed to produce test results, so parapsychology is deemed as pseudoscience.

Anyway, you not show any physical evidence to support the existence of God. God cannot be observed, measured or tested, which make the belief in God or other deities, “unfalsifiable”.

Using evidence as way of objectively finding answers, don’t mean being omniscience.

The only people who believe in omniscience are people who claimed their god being omniscience. And I am certainly no god.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You speak without knowledge of who I am--at my core.

"You'd help yourself a bit if you could learn that people are apes, or at the least that that is the scientific position."

My dad taught gifted high school students and I had/have hyperlexia, so I was reading high school/college level biology texts from a tender age.

Let's go with 98% similiarities between people and apes--that's MILLIONS of genetic differences.

I see claims like "I've done the research", "I was a gifted science student", "I read On the Origin of Species when I was three"...Yet, none of this seems to be reflected in the presence of strict creationists in these debates and discussions.

Don't hold back so much.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought it probably was. The refusal of creationists to learn even the most basic of things is definitely yet another topic that's kinda been done to death.


Yup. Years ago, another science advocate would explain that very thing to me whenever I would cite theology as the root issue. He kept telling me "It's even deeper than that; it's mostly just basic psychology". It took me a bit, but eventually I came around to what he was saying.


IMO, it's not so much that he doesn't see it, it's that how he comes across in debates with non-believers isn't a significant concern. Creationists' priorities generally seem to be to defend the faith, keep their own faith intact, and attack the opposing view. "Coming across as informed and rational" hardly ever seems to be important.


Ah, but you're thinking analytically and strategically. Most creationists we encounter in places like this are instead generally reacting and thinking intuitively.

I've been doing a bit of reading on different types of thinking and evaluating information, and it's really helped me better understand this whole debate. As my wife likes to remind me on a regular basis.....Not everyone thinks like you!

This conversation string between you and @It Aint Necessarily So may be one of the most important set of posts I have read in the Creation/Evolution debate/discussion in years.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Look, BilliardsBall. It is very clear to me that don’t understand the concept of the use of evidence, which are to TEST an idea, a concept, a model, a hypothesis or a theory.

Personally, I think you don’t want are evidence for, because that would weaken your faith in your religion.

Some theists have no problems accepting evidence that backed up any science models. You, on the other hand, are ones of those who would deny evidence - therefore denying reality - especially if the evidence don’t agree with or don’t support your personal beliefs of your religion.

Religious beliefs for some, are what blind people from accepting reality, because of their personal biases for their scriptures, their messiah (in your case, as you’re a Christian) and for their God.

I am not claiming any omniscience on my part, but you are. I can redirect your claims of omniscience upon yourself.

For instance, your own biases that your scriptures, your messiah & prophets, your god, is a (biased) claim of your own “omniscience”.

First of, “sciences”, here I am referring to Natural Sciences, since this topic is about evolution, therefore about biology; I am excluding Social Sciences, because Social Sciences are not the studies of “nature”.

Second. Sciences don’t concern itself with what are “possible” and what are “impossible”. The possible vs impossible are more arguments found in philosophies or in religions.

Since, sciences relied on EVIDENCE, evidence are testing the model, if the model is PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE.

There are 3 possible outcomes:

(A) The evidence will VERIFY the model, therefore the model is PROBABLE & true.

(B) The evidence will REFUTE the model, therefore the model is IMPROBABLE & false.

(C) The absence of evidence (zero evidence), meaning the model isn’t testable, therefore the model cannot be tested.​

Another name for a concept or model being “untestable” (C) is UNFALSIFIABLE.

Unfalsifiable concept or model, cannot even qualify as being a hypothesis; they are deemed as pseudoscience, speculation, opinion, belief, etc.

C is actually worse than B.

Do you want to know what are untestable, therefore cannot be tested?

I will give you a hint. It start with the prefix - “super”.

Yep. Supernatural. Supernatural pertains to anything that isn’t natural, based on imaginations and fantasies, like miracles, magic, sorcery, psychic powers (eg telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis, etc), afterlife, heaven, hell, purgatory, deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, ghosts, fairies, etc.

None of these are testable.

Oh, yes, I have heard there have been researches and there have being tests done on people who were claiming to have some sorts of psychic powers - these researches and studies are called “parapsychology”, but they have failed to produce test results, so parapsychology is deemed as pseudoscience.

Anyway, you not show any physical evidence to support the existence of God. God cannot be observed, measured or tested, which make the belief in God or other deities, “unfalsifiable”.

Using evidence as way of objectively finding answers, don’t mean being omniscience.

The only people who believe in omniscience are people who claimed their god being omniscience. And I am certainly no god.

My faith is based on evidence--again you've pigeon holed what evidence IS.

Israel has fulfilled 60 prophecies--VISIBLY since 1948 AD--given 2,500 years ago. The Bible is prescient, which is supernatural by any reckoning.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see claims like "I've done the research", "I was a gifted science student", "I read On the Origin of Species when I was three"...Yet, none of this seems to be reflected in the presence of strict creationists in these debates and discussions.

Don't hold back so much.

I'd love for you to address the fact stated, too. Apes and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc.

 

[gnostic]

My faith is based on evidence--again you've pigeon holed what evidence IS.

Ah...no.

If it is anyone is twisting these two words, it would be you.

Faith have two meanings, one of them have non-religious aspect or definition, as in trust (or accepting) someone or trust (or accepting) in something.

A religious definition to faith, would “trust”, “acceptance” or “conviction” of one’s own belief in religion, belief in religious doctrine, belief in god(s), belief in religious leader (eg prophet, messiah, etc), belief in miracles, belief in whatever afterlife you may have, etc.

It doesn’t matter, which faith it is - whether it be religious or non-religious” faith - they are all very subjective, faith is like one’s own personal opinion, personal preference or taste.

Faith isn’t about evidence at all. You would “accept” (faith) whatever you believe in, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and that sounds like “bias” to me.

In sciences. Evidence, on the other hand, is the observations of “physical evidence”, and the evidence are parts of the physical phenomena or natural phenomena.

The “observations” would and should provide some information (or data) as to what it is detecting, detecting the physical characteristics or properties of the phenomena, be able to provide quantitative measurements of the evidence (eg dimensions, volume, mass, density, electric current or voltage, energy, etc), comparison analysis, etc.

These observations of evidence and data, are useful to sciences, because scientists can determine if the models (hypotheses, theories, etc) “is science” or “isn’t science”.

So a model can be correct or incorrect, probable or improbable, all depending on the numbers of evidence & data supporting or not supporting the model.

Evidence and data provided the level of objectivity that don’t exist in faith.

That’s the differences between faith and evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My faith is based on evidence--again you've pigeon holed what evidence IS.

Israel has fulfilled 60 prophecies--VISIBLY since 1948 AD--given 2,500 years ago. The Bible is prescient, which is supernatural by any reckoning.

But it hasn't. Those prophecies are just ad hoc reinterpretations after the fact. When the Bible makes clear prophecy it fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd love for you to address the fact stated, too. Apes and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc.

Why do you think that? Most people that make that claim have no clue about genetics and how to apply it to evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My faith is based on evidence--again you've pigeon holed what evidence IS.

Evidence (noun) is what is evident (adjective) to the senses. What it is evidence of requires the application of valid reasoning to generate sound conclusions. There's no wiggle room here. These don't have to be your rules, and they obviously are not, but those who know and adhere to them aren't interested in what others using other methods call truth and supporting evidence.

The Baha'i will tell you that their scriptures and the biography of their messenger are evidence to them of a god. Critical thinkers reject that conclusion upon reviewing that evidence. There is nothing in their holy book or any other holy book that a human being couldn't have written, which betrays the claim that it is evidence of a god channeling it. There would need to be something superhuman there to even begin to think that it wasn't written by an ordinary human being.

Israel has fulfilled 60 prophecies--VISIBLY since 1948 AD--given 2,500 years ago. The Bible is prescient, which is supernatural by any reckoning.

Those prophecies don't support you claims for them. They are not prescient in any way not common to human experience. What you call evidence of supernatural prescience isn't that. High quality prophecy - the kind that can convince a critical thinker - needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified. It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique. What happened in 1948 was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was a movie called "Frequency" in which Dennis Quaid's son living in the future tells his father living in the past the outcome of game five of what is for him the as yet unfinished 1969 World Series from 1998 using a ham radio in order to convince his father that he really knows his father's future. Here's what the son said to the father:

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."​

Then the father sees it all play out live on a TV in a bar. Is that convincing? Once one rules out a taped delay broadcast of the game, yes, it is. Why? Because it is very specific and predicted something very unlikely. Biblical prophecy lacks that specificity, without which, it is very human and mundane, and reminds nobody of a god.

Apes and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc.

Still with the "apes and people"? Did you read the discussion Jose Fly and I had about you writing that? We were wondering what causes you to keep making that error. At one point, I mentioned that I hoped you would clarify that, but you chose not to have any input into what was being decided about your likely motives.

One shouldn't expect a person unable to assimilate that man is an ape to understand much other evolutionary science, either. One has no standing in a scientific discussion if he can't learn the science. Certainly, you consider that reasonable. Imagine how you would respond to somebody who couldn't learn biblical prophecy correctly but called it weak anyway.

But to address your comment, no, the differences between humans and non-human apes speaks to the fact that every change offered an adaptive advantage and was retained by the population's gene pool (now would be the time to stop reading if science has no value to you, as only science lies ahead). Man had a different history from the other great apes, who are all hairy, arboreal brachiators and knuckle walkers feeding on leaves and nuts. Man's ancestors lost their jungle as the Sahara desertified, and he had to come down to the earth, shed his hair and stood upright to engage in persistence hunting, and evolved a big brain to take advantage of his free, dexterous hands. Why and just where this happened are uncertain, but one interesting idea attributes the changes to changes in ocean currents and local humidity and temperature caused by North and South America coming together and ending a Pacific -> Atlantic current.

 

[gnostic]

Let's go with 98% similiarities between people and apes--that's MILLIONS of genetic differences.

I'd love for you to address the fact stated, too. Apes and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc.

The word “ape” isn’t a name of any species, BilliardsBall.

The word “ape” is a taxon classification of some shared physical and genetic traits of groups of primates (the taxon order, Primates).

Primates (order) is grouped together with other mammals in the class Mammalia.

Mammals, primates, apes, monkeys, fishes, sharks, birds, amphibians, frogs, dinosaurs, vertebrates, animals, plants, trees, bacteria, etc. None of these words that we use everyday to describe them, are names or labels of “species”.

Humans, as in the Homo sapiens (species) or Homo sapiens sapiens (subspecies) are the only species that are extant today in the genus Homo, which is a Latin word for “human”. Other human species in the Homo genus are extinct, eg Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, etc.

Homo isn’t a name of species, just as apes are not of species.

Humans are species of the Homo, but they are also species of other classification names:

• Homo (genus)
• Homonini (tribe), which includes the genera Homo and Australopithecus
• Hominidae (family), “great apes”
• Hominoidea (superfamily) “apes”
• Catarrhini (parvorder) “Old World monkeys”
• Simiiformes (infraorder) “monkeys”
  
• Haplorhini (suborder)
  
• Primates (order)
  
• Mammalia (class)
• Animalia (kingdom)

Humans are apes and primates, as well as they are mammals and animals. But words like apes and primates, in biology, don’t referred to as species.

We often used the word “fish”, eg on trout, barramundi, sardine, tiger shark, swordfish, etc, and yet “fish” isn’t a species. None of the fishes I had listed are of the same species; they don’t even belong to the same genus and same family.

We do the same thing with birds, but “birds” (class Aves) isn’t name of the species, nor are peregrine falcons are of the same species as that of doves or of pelicans.

And speaking of falcons, falcons isn’t the name of species, but that of the genus Falco and the family Falconidae. There are many different species and subspecies of falcons, so the peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) are of different species to the gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'd love for you to address the fact stated, too. Apes and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc.

Obvious diversion. I recognize that humans are apes per science. I recognize that you deny it regardless of the evidence.

The number of mutations indicates that both lines were evolving following the divergence from the common ancestor.

Show me. How does it falsify the relationship?

You claim to be fully cognizant of the biology from your tender youth. Show me.

 

[gnostic]

My dad taught gifted high school students and I had/have hyperlexia, so I was reading high school/college level biology texts from a tender age.

I have never use “tender age” before, because I have not learnt its definition.

Is that referring to infant and toddler age?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ah...no.

If it is anyone is twisting these two words, it would be you.

Faith have two meanings, one of them have non-religious aspect or definition, as in trust (or accepting) someone or trust (or accepting) in something.

A religious definition to faith, would “trust”, “acceptance” or “conviction” of one’s own belief in religion, belief in religious doctrine, belief in god(s), belief in religious leader (eg prophet, messiah, etc), belief in miracles, belief in whatever afterlife you may have, etc.

It doesn’t matter, which faith it is - whether it be religious or non-religious” faith - they are all very subjective, faith is like one’s own personal opinion, personal preference or taste.

Faith isn’t about evidence at all. You would “accept” (faith) whatever you believe in, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and that sounds like “bias” to me.

In sciences. Evidence, on the other hand, is the observations of “physical evidence”, and the evidence are parts of the physical phenomena or natural phenomena.

The “observations” would and should provide some information (or data) as to what it is detecting, detecting the physical characteristics or properties of the phenomena, be able to provide quantitative measurements of the evidence (eg dimensions, volume, mass, density, electric current or voltage, energy, etc), comparison analysis, etc.

These observations of evidence and data, are useful to sciences, because scientists can determine if the models (hypotheses, theories, etc) “is science” or “isn’t science”.

So a model can be correct or incorrect, probable or improbable, all depending on the numbers of evidence & data supporting or not supporting the model.

Evidence and data provided the level of objectivity that don’t exist in faith.

That’s the differences between faith and evidence.

Blind faith is gross to us both--accepting things without evidence.

Biblical faith is trust based on disclosed evidence, that's the precise wording here in Hebrews 11: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen.