Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Bear Wild]

It is misleading to call evolution by "chance". If you want proper answers ask proper questions.

They get suck on one word and ignore the whole pattern. Chance plays a role in evolution but so does selection including behavior selection and environmental selection. Epigenetics is not pure chance either. But by selecting one word and ignoring the rest you create the false image of "How could it be all chance" answer - evolution is not all chance, not all random, and this was proposed by Darwin himself with no knowledge of genetics. Unfortunately most creationists/IDs do not understand evolution enough to recognize their own mistakes. They are just driven by their false religious assumption that evolution must be false to justify their belief. They are wrong though, just ask meritis, or Dan from Smithfield, or most pagans like myself. We all recognize that evolution is completely compatible with any religion that recognizes the truth in nature.

 

[Bear Wild]

I hate to say this, but I'm not surprised that you do not see that it doesn't address that by chance evolution of the thumb and the fabulous creation we see around and in us. But -- be that as it may --

I understand the Norse creation story is fabulous. I mean look at the poetic symbolism of the meeting of ice and fire, the symbolic representation of the cow with milk feeding the forming earth giant Ymir. Going from Chaos to Order. A perfect creation story. Energy meets matter in the void and in its chaotic clash order represented by the gods and goddesses form. Yes nothing beats the Norse creation story does it.

 

[Bear Wild]

To answer you relating to your point is that it has little if anything to do with evolution. Meantime, it leaves the question as to where are the dna links between the last Unknown Link between bonobos, gorillas, chimps (etc.) and humans? What happened? It got lost? You think maybe they'll discover it in a newly unearthed tusk?

You just don't know when new thing get discovered do you. But it happens all of the time. Just think how far we have come from Lewis Leakey's Lucy discovery. It just warms the heart for evolution doesn't it.

 

[Bear Wild]

No prob. Best I could find on short notice.

I find the other primates pretty fascinating. It's baffling to me how anyone could not see how closely related we truly are.

All life is fascinating and what a gift it is from evolution. I have been learning from my Raccoon brothers and sisters. Most night I will see one sharing a meal with a skunk or opossum or even one of my outdoor cats (only two one named Tyrion and one named Jon Snow, Don't ask me where I got the names, I have no Idea). They also only take what they need and never eat all, leaving food that other will eat. They are also one of the few mammals that have von economo cells in their brains (thought to be important in social behavior) and direct motor connection from the cortex to specific muscle groups like humans. We are just one interconnected family with lots of different relatives on this plant. It is a shame that humans wall themselves off from our precious world and consume everything giving back little.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To answer you relating to your point is that it has little if anything to do with evolution. Meantime, it leaves the question as to where are the dna links between the last Unknown Link between bonobos, gorillas, chimps (etc.) and humans? What happened? It got lost? You think maybe they'll discover it in a newly unearthed tusk?

It has everything to do with evolution. That's the entire reason I'm trying to walk you through it.
Now could you please respond to it, and try stay on point?

We are extremely closely related to the other primates, which is evident in our DNA. The same way you are extremely closely related to your cousins, even more closely related to your siblings and yet even more closely related to your own parents.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I hate to say this, but I'm not surprised that you do not see that it doesn't address that by chance evolution of the thumb and the fabulous creation we see around and in us. But -- be that as it may --

I don't see anything because it's a flat out assertion that isn't explained in any way.

And I see that you haven't bothered to try to explain it.
So I will have to dismiss it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All life is fascinating and what a gift it is from evolution. I have been learning from my Raccoon brothers and sisters. Most night I will see one sharing a meal with a skunk or opossum or even one of my outdoor cats (only two one named Tyrion and one named Jon Snow, Don't ask me where I got the names, I have no Idea). They also only take what they need and never eat all, leaving food that other will eat. They are also one of the few mammals that have von economo cells in their brains (thought to be important in social behavior) and direct motor connection from the cortex to specific muscle groups like humans. We are just one interconnected family with lots of different relatives on this plant. It is a shame that humans wall themselves off from our precious world and consume everything giving back little.

Yep, yep!
I did not know that about raccoons, but it makes perfect sense, actually.

Gee, I wouldn't know where you got those names either, nothing comes to mind ....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To answer you relating to your point is that it has little if anything to do with evolution. Meantime, it leaves the question as to where are the dna links between the last Unknown Link between bonobos, gorillas, chimps (etc.) and humans? What happened? It got lost? You think maybe they'll discover it in a newly unearthed tusk?

Do you think that apes have tusks? What fossil lineage are you looking at or did some pages get stuck together and and the page on apes is now back to back with the one on elephants?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I hate to say this, but I'm not surprised that you do not see that it doesn't address that by chance evolution of the thumb and the fabulous creation we see around and in us. But -- be that as it may --

The evolution of the thumb was directed by natural selection and not chance. The chance part is the selectable variation that occurs for selection to operate on. You are confused on where chance is operating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So close that humans and gorillas, etc., cannot copulate and reproduce. (right?)

They are different species. That does not mean that the relationships are not close. A sparrow and a hawk are different bird species that cannot reproduce, but they are more closely related to each other than they are to us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So sorry, but when I investigated it, evidently there is a gap of genetic material in their sequences between chimps, bonobos, and others similar and humans. And you say, "probably" not unknown?? Somehow if my memory serves me correct, and sometimes it does not, scientists haven't found that missing link yet. The Unknown Common Ancestor. Are you saying they've found it?
P.S. I didn't say one cannot family trace lineage by means of genetic lineup and/or material. But lineage from humans to chimps and bonobos? Not so far...

And when the next basal group is found, you will just reapply this fallacious argument. And when the next after that is found, you will again. And again. And again.

You are saying that you cannot be certain a crime took place unless you find the exact criminal that committed the crime. Jack the Ripper was never found. All those dead women must have committed suicide.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't see anything because it's a flat out assertion that isn't explained in any way.

And I see that you haven't bothered to try to explain it.
So I will have to dismiss it.

And that is how a creationist plays the game. Creation is asserted, but never supported. The assertion is the argument for them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And that is how a creationist plays the game. Creation is asserted, but never supported. The assertion is the argument for them.

That seems to most often be the case, in my experience.

And that's while demanding absurd amounts of evidence and support for scientific theories they don't accept and never will.

 

[Astrophile]

So sorry, but when I investigated it, evidently there is a gap of genetic material in their sequences between chimps, bonobos, and others similar and humans. And you say, "probably" not unknown?? Somehow if my memory serves me correct, and sometimes it does not, scientists haven't found that missing link yet. The Unknown Common Ancestor. Are you saying they've found it?
P.S. I didn't say one cannot family trace lineage by means of genetic lineup and/or material. But lineage from humans to chimps and bonobos? Not so far...

I showed you the diagram of the ape+human family tree (see above and post 3797), and specifically named Ouranopithecus as a plausible common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Why do you continue to insist that this common ancestor is a 'missing link' and an 'Unknown Common Ancestor'?

You can examine the evidence for yourself. Look again at that family tree, and see how many extinct genera of apes are named as you trace our ancestry back towards the dryopithecines, the Ponginae (orang-utans and their ancestors) and the gibbons. Try googling 'Ouranopithecus'. See what Ouranopithecus - Wikipedia and the attached references have to say. Look at the article about the teeth of Ouranopithecus at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001 . The evidence is on the internet if you are willing to look at it.

 

[YoursTrue]

It has everything to do with evolution. That's the entire reason I'm trying to walk you through it.
Now could you please respond to it, and try stay on point?

We are extremely closely related to the other primates, which is evident in our DNA. The same way you are extremely closely related to your cousins, even more closely related to your siblings and yet even more closely related to your own parents.

Being close does not mean that 'we,' as the human race, came about as a result of pure, unminded, evolution. It means that there are agents that are similar.

 

[YoursTrue]

View attachment 48083


I showed you the diagram of the ape+human family tree (see above and post 3797), and specifically named Ouranopithecus as a plausible common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Why do you continue to insist that this common ancestor is a 'missing link' and an 'Unknown Common Ancestor'?

You can examine the evidence for yourself. Look again at that family tree, and see how many extinct genera of apes are named as you trace our ancestry back towards the dryopithecines, the Ponginae (orang-utans and their ancestors) and the gibbons. Try googling 'Ouranopithecus'. See what Ouranopithecus - Wikipedia and the attached references have to say. Look at the article about the teeth of Ouranopithecus at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001 . The evidence is on the internet if you are willing to look at it.

While scientists and philosophers may speculate, there is simply not one iota of proof that there is a link that evolved, came from, turned into humans from chimpanzees, bonobos and/or gorillas.

 

[YoursTrue]

That seems to most often be the case, in my experience.

And that's while demanding absurd amounts of evidence and support for scientific theories they don't accept and never will.

That gophers run into holes is not theory. It's fact. While sounding simple, there's a difference between fact and theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't see anything because it's a flat out assertion that isn't explained in any way.

And I see that you haven't bothered to try to explain it.
So I will have to dismiss it.

Oh, and by the way, I don't dismiss the fact that dna exists, or that combinations and quantities can be similar or differ. Just like I don't discount the fact that vaccines can be produced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That gophers run into holes is not theory. It's fact. While sounding simple, there's a difference between fact and theory.

Yes, theories and facts are different. Theories explain facts. The only theory that explains all of the facts of life is the theory of evolution. Thus arises the saying:

Just as the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity the theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.

Your position would not be laughably bad if creationists ever did anything to support their views. But due to their cowardice there is not even any scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While scientists and philosophers may speculate, there is simply not one iota of proof that there is a link that evolved, came from, turned into humans from chimpanzees, bonobos and/or gorillas.

The term is "evidence" and it is there in abundance. Now you either have no clue as to what you are talking about or you are openly lying. I do not think that you are openly lying it is rather clear from all of your posts that you won't let yourself learn.

Why is that?