I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[nPeace]

It is happening now, it is observed to be happening nowm

And it is known that unnatural amounts of radiation can speed up mutations.

Both using current methods and on early earth when there was little atmospheric filtering of the suns radiation

What's happening now? Adaptation? Change? Or ape to man evolution?
Ape to man evolution? No. Where? Nowhere... Not now. Not ever... as in, never.

 

[nPeace]

The correct answer in this case is
a) The ancient ancestor of apes and monkeys were not like modern monkeys. So the kind of animals from which apes and monkeys evolved from actually no longer exist. See example below,
Aegyptopithecus - Wikipedia
b) The similarity that does exist between those ancient " monkeys" and modern "monkeys" is due to the fact that the arboreal ecological niche has more or less stayed the same. Natural selection will not usually drive a new innovation if the population remains in the same ecology more or less.

This ancient ancestor of apes and monkeys... did you see it? Did anyone see it? It's not anything like God, is it?

 

[Valjean]

If we come from monkeys.Why are monkeys not turning into humans still?

If we came from monkeys.Why doesn't someone make a machine that evolves stuff.And evolve a monkey into a human?

That's not how evolution works. It's not progressive or hierarchical. It doesn't necessarily work toward increased complexity.

OK. how it does work, in a nutshell:

Organisms inhabit ecological niches, and evolve traits that suit them to their particular habitat and lifestyle. If another habitat or lifestyle possibility develops or presents itself, some individuals may try to expand into and exploit it.

They might not fit quite as well as they did in their previous niche, but if there are unexploited food, safety, living or reproductive resources, somebody's going to try and have a go at it.
The new niche will have different features, though, which favor different anatomical or psychological traits: maybe longer hair if its colder, longer legs if it's more open or there are fast predators, different colors to blend in, &c.

Offspring are not clones. Sex mixes things up, genetically, so each offspring is an individual, with unique DNA. Since each is slightly different, some may be born with a feature that 'fits' it better into the new situation. The difference may be minuscule, but even a slightly better fit will likely confer minutely better survival and reproductive success. More numerous offspring will increase the frequency of the fitter traits, and a new look and lifestyle develops within that niche.

After many generations, l o n g periods of time and, perhaps, continuing habitat change, a whole new species may develop, that doesn't interact with or reproduce with the original clan in the old habitat -- but if the original habitat still persists, so will the original design that best fit it.

So: Monkeys are successful within their particular niche. There's no reason they'd go extinct just because some individuals at the territorial periphery, long, long ago, expanded into new territory, adapted to it and now no longer look or act like their forebears. One species became two. Both thrive within the habitats they're suited to. The new species did not supersede the old.

Now, as for our coming from monkeys, if you trace our family tree back in time, you won't find any monkeys. The monkeys and apes -- we're the apes -- branched off from a common, pre-monkey/ape ancestor.

Google: "primate cladogram"

 

[Valjean]

This ancient ancestor of apes and monkeys... did you see it? Did anyone see it? It's not anything like God, is it?

No, nothing like God -- and we don't have to physically see something to be aware of it or study it.

What's happening now? Adaptation? Change? Or ape to man evolution?

Ape to man evolution? No. Where? Nowhere... Not now. Not ever... as in, never.[/QUOTE]
But we're already apes, aren't we? No evolution needed.

nPeace, may I ask how you define "ape?" I suspect we're working from different definitions.

 

[ChristineM]

Never heard a Creationist say that.
The first time I ever heard it was in this thread... from Atheists.

I guess your hearing is selective. It has been said several times on this forum and xan be Googled anytime you want

 

[ChristineM]

What's happening now? Adaptation? Change? Or ape to man evolution?
Ape to man evolution? No. Where? Nowhere... Not now. Not ever... as in, never.

The langawi bent toed gecko (and several other geckos) are actively evolving and are being studded
The pigmy sloth did not exist 10,000 years ago, it does now.
See my avatar, a 22,000 year old anatomically modern human. Yet there are many differences between today's humans and cro magnon. You want to discuss this further I'll create a thread.

You may call evolution adaption if it makes you feel better about rejecting observed evidence, that's your problem.

 

[nPeace]

No, nothing like God -- and we don't have to physically see something to be aware of it or study it..

How do you know it's nothing like God.
You haven't seen it, have you? We haven't seen God either.
Aren't those similarities?

Ape to man evolution? No. Where? Nowhere... Not now. Not ever... as in, never.

But we're already apes, aren't we? No evolution needed.
Not me. You are? Okay. Hairless ape? Any fangs? What kind of an ape are you?

nPeace, may I ask how you define "ape?" I suspect we're working from different definitions.

I used to watch a show called "Planet of the Apes".
I guess they were trying to tell us something.

This sounds like one of those questions where they ask you "What's an /$$?" ...and you go, I thought it was a donkey... at least it used to be.
Now, it our rear end.

I am not really concerned with how man defines things. They can believe whatever they feel to.
I don't follow the changing tide.
Going against the tide in this world seems to work well for me.
So, if you want to accept how they define you, ...but I don't have to accept how you want to define me.
Should I accept whatever a person defines me as?
There are some really obscene descriptions given to people and their body parts.
I don't have to accept these.

Some people do. Some girls are proud referring to themselves as itches. Oops. Missed a letter. ...but I'm glad I did.

History of terminology
The English name primates is derived from Old French or French primat, from a noun use of Latin primat-, from primus ('prime, first rank'). The name was given by Carl Linnaeus because he thought this the "highest" order of animals. The relationships among the different groups of primates were not clearly understood until relatively recently, so the commonly used terms are somewhat confused. For example, ape has been used either as an alternative for monkey or for any tailless, relatively human-like primate

 

[nPeace]

I guess your hearing is selective. It has been said several times on this forum and xan be Googled anytime you want

I'm telling you what I heard.
You are free to assert whatever tickles your fancy.

 

[nPeace]

The langawi bent toed gecko (and several other geckos) are actively evolving and are being studded

What? Studded giraffes? Or studded geckoes?
The latter? So Aren't they supposed to be that - geckoes?

The pigmy sloth did not exist 10,000 years ago, it does now.

They said the same about coelacanths, until one was found 66 million years later.
Then they said :" Wrong again. "

See my avatar, a 22,000 year old anatomically modern human. Yet there are many differences between today's humans and cro magnon. You want to discuss this further I'll create a thread.

Um... I don't look Chinese.
Actually, I can tell the difference between a Chinese, and African, quite easily.
Create a thread? What for... Why, are you bored?

You may call evolution adaption if it makes you feel better about rejecting observed evidence, that's your problem.

I don't have a problem.
You can call adaption evolution if it makes you feel better about rejecting observed evidence, that's your problem

 

[ChristineM]

I'm telling you what I heard.
You are free to assert whatever tickles your fancy.

Of course you are. As am i. I just find it rather odd, even far fetched but hey, you heared what you heard

 

[ChristineM]

The latter? So Aren't they supposed to be that - geckoes

Yes, and, they are evolving geckos. Sorry if that upsets you

They said the same about coelacanths, until one was found 66 million years later.
Then they said :" Wrong again.

Strawman, but expected. The thing is both the coelacanth and the pigmy sloth are now available for study. And the study of DNA is very, very precise.

Um... I don't look Chinese.

What?

Create a thread? What for... Why, are you bored

Just in case you felt the need to learn a little about human evolution but i see you prefer your limited view.

I don't have a problem.

No?

You can call adaption evolution if it makes you feel better about rejecting observed evidence, that's your problem

Adaption to environment is evolution. I.e. the cells and hence the body evolve, even if only slightly. Over many thousands of years those slight differences build up.

It doesn't matter how you want to hide from it, evolution does not need your approval

 

[Valjean]

How do you know it's nothing like God.
You haven't seen it, have you? We haven't seen God either.
Aren't those similarities?

Unless your God is a quadrupedal primate, the ancestor of apes and monkeys was not him.

I used to watch a show called "Planet of the Apes".
I guess they were trying to tell us something.

Imaginative fantasy based on a presumption of human-like intelligence and culture evolving in existent great apes.

This sounds like one of those questions where they ask you "What's an /$$?" ...and you go, I thought it was a donkey... at least it used to be.
Now, it our rear end.

No idea what you're talking about, here.

I am not really concerned with how man defines things. They can believe whatever they feel to.
I don't follow the changing tide.
Going against the tide in this world seems to work well for me.
So, if you want to accept how they define you, ...but I don't have to accept how you want to define me.
Should I accept whatever a person defines me as?
There are some really obscene descriptions given to people and their body parts.
I don't have to accept these.

It's not a matter of 'working well for you.' Lots of people are very content living a mythology. They have purpose, status, and a place in a grand scheme of things. It's a very comforting opiate.
But if we're talking about objective, truth, these considerations are irrelevant.
You cite mythology and faith. I'm talking about ontology and epistemology.

The English name primates is derived from Old French or French primat, from a noun use of Latin primat-, from primus ('prime, first rank'). The name was given by Carl Linnaeus because he thought this the "highest" order of animals. The relationships among the different groups of primates were not clearly understood until relatively recently, so the commonly used terms are somewhat confused. For example, ape has been used either as an alternative for monkey or for any tailless, relatively human-like primate

And none of this interesting philology has anything to do with modern scientific terminology.
We're using "ape" as a technical term; a taxonomic category.

 

[gnostic]

This ancient ancestor of apes and monkeys... did you see it? Did anyone see it? It's not anything like God, is it?

Are you seriously wanting to play this silly game?

Have you ever seen god?

Have you ever seen God create anything?

Were you there when god created Adam from dust?

Did the author of Genesis “eyewitnesses” the creation, or did invent one based on Babylonian myth in the 6th century BCE?

There are no evidence to support the author wrote Genesis around 4000 BCE, and certainly no evidence to support 15th century BCE “Moses” being the author, nor there are any evidence that were Hebrew writings in this century.

The oldest evidence of any Hebrew passage from scriptures existing, is just a couple of verses from Numbers 6 concerning the
Priestly Blessing, were inscribed on silver amulet (discovered in cave at Ketef Hinnom), known as the Silver Scrolls.

The amulet and other objects found in this tomb, have been dated some times between King Josiah’s reign (c 630 BCE) and just before Babylonians captured Jerusalem (c 590 BCE).

There are no texts older than Ketef Hinnom Scrolls. The scrolls say nothing about creation, nor do they mention any names of biblical characters.

Whoever inscribed these scrolls, it certainly wasn’t Moses.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, and, they are evolving geckos. Sorry if that upsets you




Strawman, but expected. The thing is both the coelacanth and the pigmy sloth are now available for study. And the study of DNA is very, very precise.




What?




Just in case you felt the need to learn a little about human evolution but i see you prefer your limited view.



No?



Adaption to environment is evolution. I.e. the cells and hence the body evolve, even if only slightly. Over many thousands of years those slight differences build up.

It doesn't matter how you want to hide from it, evolution does not need your approval

Adaptation is evolution? So evolution is adaptation? ...but you said... You may call evolution adaption if it makes you feel better about rejecting observed evidence, that's your problem.

My approval? LOL
Belief in evolution has no effect on me. It could be called whatever, and believed by millions... does not bother me.

Belief in God bothers you, does it?

 

[nPeace]

It's not a matter of 'working well for you.' Lots of people are very content living a mythology. They have purpose, status, and a place in a grand scheme of things. It's a very comforting opiate.
But if we're talking about objective, truth, these considerations are irrelevant.
You cite mythology and faith. I'm talking about ontology and epistemology.

I'm sorry, but I referred to objective truths. Not mythology.
Mythology does not produce reality. Results are realities. That's why they work.

 

[ChristineM]

Adaptation is evolution? So evolution is adaptation? ...but you said... You may call evolution adaption if it makes you feel better about rejecting observed evidence, that's your problem.

And. You make my point for me and think its clever?

Belief in evolution has no effect on me.

Then why are you griping about it?

Belief in God bothers you, does it?

Which god? People who worship a genocidal myth bother me when they push the righteousness of that genocidal maniac but the genocidal maniac, nar, just a myth.

 

[nPeace]

Are you seriously wanting to play this silly game?

Have you ever seen god?

Have you ever seen God create anything?

Were you there when god created Adam from dust?

Did the author of Genesis “eyewitnesses” the creation, or did invent one based on Babylonian myth in the 6th century BCE?

There are no evidence to support the author wrote Genesis around 4000 BCE, and certainly no evidence to support 15th century BCE “Moses” being the author, nor there are any evidence that were Hebrew writings in this century.

The oldest evidence of any Hebrew passage from scriptures existing, is just a couple of verses from Numbers 6 concerning the
Priestly Blessing, were inscribed on silver amulet (discovered in cave at Ketef Hinnom), known as the Silver Scrolls.

The amulet and other objects found in this tomb, have been dated some times between King Josiah’s reign (c 630 BCE) and just before Babylonians captured Jerusalem (c 590 BCE).

There are no texts older than Ketef Hinnom Scrolls. The scrolls say nothing about creation, nor do they mention any names of biblical characters.

Whoever inscribed these scrolls, it certainly wasn’t Moses.

Monkeys, apes and evolution. That's the topic.
There are plenty threads discussing the things you raised. Feel free to pick one. I am participating in some recent ones.

 

[nPeace]

And. You make my point for me and think its clever?

Then why are you griping about it?

Me? Not me.

Which god? People who worship a genocidal myth bother me when they push the righteousness of that genocidal maniac but the genocidal maniac, nar, just a myth.

You don't know that. You just say so. So let's not go in that black hole.

 

[ChristineM]

Me? Not me.


You don't know that. You just say so. So let's not go in that black hole.

I have read the bible and have seen the result manifest itself in many christians

 

[John53]

I still don't understand why someone would start this thread then not participate at all. If they were genuine questions why wouldn't he want to discuss the answers with the people who were kind enough to use some of their valuable time to answer?