Does evolution have a purpose?

[Astrophile]

Ok. Thanks. So? Does similarity mean we have a Common Ancestor among the apes?

Yes, probably. Look, as I have explained before, there are no fossil humans, chimpanzees or gorillas in Miocene or older rocks, but we must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene, Oligocene, Eocene etc. epochs. We also ought to be similar to these Miocene and earlier ancestors, and the Miocene fossil animals that are anatomically most similar to us are the apes, animals like Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Pieralopithecus and Dryopithecus. Therefore our similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas implies that we are descended from a common ancestor that was a Miocene ape.

I have explained this many times before, and I am getting tired of having to explain it again. If you don't accept this argument, tell me where I am wrong, and I shall stop using it.

 

[Astrophile]

apparently Darwin did not directly say that humans were developed (evolved) from a common ancestor (as still unfound) of humans and possibly bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas, etc. but suggested that birds, fishes, mammals and reptiles have related lives.

I have already shown you this diagram (below) indicating the evolution of humans, australopithecines, chimpanzees and gorillas from common ancestors (something like Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Ouranopithecus and Chororapithecus), so you can't say that this common ancestor is still unfound. The problem is more that we have too many possible fossil ancestors, and we can't tell which ones are genuine and which are side branches of the evolutionary tree.

Thus in turn would you say that means all complex life forms evolved from simpler ones through various genetic mutations? Including the so called family of apes? Just wondering because that is certainly related to Darwinian thought of common ancestry.

Yes, in essentials, although you would have to read books and scientific papers by biologists to understand the details. However, this is what Darwin thought, and towards the end of Chapter IV ('Natural Selection') of The Origin of Species he presented a diagram to show his conception of the divergence of living species from a common ancestor.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have already shown you this diagram (below) indicating the evolution of humans, australopithecines, chimpanzees and gorillas from common ancestors (something like Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Ouranopithecus and Chororapithecus), so you can't say that this common ancestor is still unfound. The problem is more that we have too many possible fossil ancestors, and we can't tell which ones are genuine and which are side branches of the evolutionary tree.



Yes, in essentials, although you would have to read books and scientific papers by biologists to understand the details. However, this is what Darwin thought, and towards the end of Chapter IV ('Natural Selection') of The Origin of Species he presented a diagram to show his conception of the divergence of living species from a common ancestor.

The diagram and DNA similarities do not prove these evolved as in coming from a common ancestor.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have already shown you this diagram (below) indicating the evolution of humans, australopithecines, chimpanzees and gorillas from common ancestors (something like Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Ouranopithecus and Chororapithecus), so you can't say that this common ancestor is still unfound. The problem is more that we have too many possible fossil ancestors, and we can't tell which ones are genuine and which are side branches of the evolutionary tree.



Yes, in essentials, although you would have to read books and scientific papers by biologists to understand the details. However, this is what Darwin thought, and towards the end of Chapter IV ('Natural Selection') of The Origin of Species he presented a diagram to show his conception of the divergence of living species from a common ancestor.

I appreciate your desire to show me the logic you use to deduce the idea you believe that all life evolved, came from, a common ancestor. There are two things here and I won't go into detail now. The first is that there is no proof. DNA similarities, fossils and physical characteristics do not prove life forms come from a common ancestor.

 

[ratiocinator]

The diagram and DNA similarities do not prove these evolved as in coming from a common ancestor.

The first is that there is no proof. DNA similarities, fossils and physical characteristics do not prove life forms come from a common ancestor.

In all this time, you're still asking for 'proof'!? How many times have you been told that science doesn't do proof, it provides evidence? Is it against your religion to ever learn anything, even something this simple?

No wonder you still haven't realised that the evidence from genetics isn't just about similarities, it's about the specific patterns of differences that are easy to explain with common descent and very difficult to explain by design (unless a designer was deliberately setting out to deceive us).

How many more times are you just going to run away from looking at the evidence?

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles
Genesis and the Genome (pdf)

 

[Valjean]

I appreciate your desire to show me the logic you use to deduce the idea you believe that all life evolved, came from, a common ancestor. There are two things here and I won't go into detail now. The first is that there is no proof. DNA similarities, fossils and physical characteristics do not prove life forms come from a common ancestor.

There is no proof that the Earth is spherical, either. All we have for physical reality is evidence, not proof.
There is a lot of evidence for human evolution. There is no contrary evidence, and there is no rational alternative explanation.

 

[Astrophile]

The diagram and DNA similarities do not prove these evolved as in coming from a common ancestor.

What other explanation is there? Living things have parents, and more distant ancestors; they don't come into existence by spontaneous generation, In any case, spontaneous generation wouldn't explain the observed DNA similarities.

If you showed me a diagram of your family tree for the last 200 years, going back to your great-great-great-great-grandparents and including your fifth cousins, would you agree with me if I said that this diagram and the DNA similarities between you and your fifth cousins do not prove that you and they are descended from common ancestors?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no proof that the Earth is spherical, either. All we have for physical reality is evidence, not proof.
There is a lot of evidence for human evolution. There is no contrary evidence, and there is no rational alternative explanation.

No proof? No pictures of a round earth? Ok you don't consider photos from space proof and other planets round? Ok. You don't see them as round. Got it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, probably. Look, as I have explained before, there are no fossil humans, chimpanzees or gorillas in Miocene or older rocks, but we must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene, Oligocene, Eocene etc. epochs. We also ought to be similar to these Miocene and earlier ancestors, and the Miocene fossil animals that are anatomically most similar to us are the apes, animals like Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Pieralopithecus and Dryopithecus. Therefore our similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas implies that we are descended from a common ancestor that was a Miocene ape.

I have explained this many times before, and I am getting tired of having to explain it again. If you don't accept this argument, tell me where I am wrong, and I shall stop using it.

Ancestors that were homo sapiens you are sure they were like present day humans, is that right? Anyway, I'm not even going into what's called Intelligent Design. Just that I don't believe in any form or shape that man evolved from some common apelike or ape ancestor. Oh, and I won't go into how life is transmitted. Anyway...

 

[Valjean]

No proof? No pictures of a round earth? Ok you don't consider photos from space proof and other planets round? Ok. You don't see them as round. Got it.

YT, you don't know what proof is. How many times has it been explained to you that science does not prove things? Why can't you remember things for more than an hour or two after they've been explained?

Science gathers, explains and tests evidence. It doesn't prove things. Reasonable people believe things that are well evidenced, and defer belief in unevidenced or poorly evidenced things. Reliability of belief depends on type, amount, consilience, reproducibility, testing and peer review.

You're correct that there's enough evidence supporting the spherical-Earth theory that disbelief would be absurd. The same with the heliocentric or germ theories.

So why do you believe in them, when there's even more evidence for the ToE? Is it because the spherical Earth theory is simple and straightforward; that you can see it in photos, as you said?

I'm sorry the ToE is too complicated for you. Why don't you just admit you're overwhelmed by all this complicated evidence from so many different disciplines, and are too intimidated to look at it in detail? Or is it that it threatens your comfortable world-view?
Not everything can be summed up in a photograph.

 

[YoursTrue]

What other explanation is there? Living things have parents, and more distant ancestors; they don't come into existence by spontaneous generation, In any case, spontaneous generation wouldn't explain the observed DNA similarities.

If you showed me a diagram of your family tree for the last 200 years, going back to your great-great-great-great-grandparents and including your fifth cousins, would you agree with me if I said that this diagram and the DNA similarities between you and your fifth cousins do not prove that you and they are descended from common ancestors?

there are gaps in the genetic codes between animals which cannot be overcome in terms of interbreeding. It can be explained away theoretically, but there is not one ounce of proof that the links (such as that "UCA") really existed.

 

[YoursTrue]

YT, you don't know what proof is. How many times has it been explained to you that science does not prove things? Why can't you remember things for more than an hour or two after they've been explained?

Science gathers, explains and tests evidence. It doesn't prove things. Reasonable people believe things that are well evidenced, and defer belief in unevidenced or poorly evidenced things. Reliability of belief depends on type, amount, consilience, reproducibility, testing and peer review.

You're correct that there's enough evidence supporting the spherical-Earth theory that disbelief would be absurd. The same with the heliocentric or germ theories.

So why do you believe in them, when there's even more evidence for the ToE? Is it because the spherical Earth theory is simple and straightforward; that you can see it in photos, as you said?

I'm sorry the ToE is too complicated for you. Why don't you just admit you're overwhelmed by all this complicated evidence from so many different disciplines, and are too intimidated to look at it in detail? Or is it that it threatens your comfortable world-view?
Not everything can be summed up in a photograph.

Science will not theorize that the earth is square.

 

[Astrophile]

There are gaps in the genetic codes between animals which cannot be overcome in terms of interbreeding.

Please tell me more about these gaps, and why they 'cannot be overcome'. I know very little about genetics, but I am willing to try to learn.

It can be explained away theoretically, but there is not one ounce of proof that the links (such as that "UCA") really existed.

It would be better to say 'evidence' rather than 'proof'. I don't know anything about the 'universal common ancestor', but we were discussing the descent of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas from Late Miocene common ancestors, such as Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Ouranopithecus and Chororopithecus. There is certainly evidence, both from genetics and from fossils, and from the obvious fact that all living things have parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and more distant ancestors, that these common ancestors existed. So far, your only counter-argument has been to deny that this evidence means what it appears to mean, without offering any other interpretation of it.

 

[Astrophile]

Ancestors that were homo sapiens you are sure they were like present day humans, is that right?

The Miocene and earlier ancestors of modern apes (including ourselves) were not Homo sapiens. However, biologists from the time of Linnaeus and T.H. Huxley have recognised the similarities between Homo sapiens and living apes. These similarities are confirmed by the existence of fossil hominins (e.g. Homo erectus, Australopithecus, Ardipithecus) that are not present-day humans but show enough similarities to be plausible ancestors of Homo sapiens.

Anyway, I'm not even going into what's called Intelligent Design.

If you are not willing to go into alternatives to evolutionary explanations, you can hardly blame me, or anybody else, for not taking any interest in them.

Oh, and I won't go into how life is transmitted. Anyway...

Everybody knows how life is transmitted from parent to offspring, and this process of descent with modification is the crucial element of evolution. If you are not willing to discuss it, you will not convince anybody.

 

[Astrophile]

Just that I don't believe in any form or shape that man evolved from some common apelike or ape ancestor.

But you are not willing to explain the reasons for your disbelief, whereas biologists are able to present the evidence for evolution. If you google on 'evidence for evolution' you will find more than six billion results. If you google on 'human evolution evidence' you will find 4.9 billion results.

 

[shunyadragon]

Does evolution have a purpose?
-If yes what is it?
-If no, why not?

There are two perspectives on what is purpose in nature. In terms of the nature of our physical existence from the science perspective 'Purpose' is an anthropomorphic perspective that does not compute in terms of how the nature of our physical existence functions. The NAture of our physical existence is a 'Product of Natural Laws and processes.

In terms of the Theistic perspective Creation the nature of our physical existence including the evolution has a 'Purpose' as the physical nature reflecting the spiritual image and nature of God.

 

[metis]

there are gaps in the genetic codes between animals which cannot be overcome in terms of interbreeding.

You're a geneticist?

Mutations, which are generally unpredictable as far as outcomes are concerned, can cause all sorts of differences.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're a geneticist?

Mutations, which are generally unpredictable as far as outcomes are concerned, can cause all sorts of differences.

Not true. Mutations are not unpredictable, and always occur in a predictable pattern within a limited range of outcomes. Yes, the timing of any one mutation is random and not predictable, but over time mutations occur in a predictable pattern,

 

[metis]

Mutations are not unpredictable, and always occur in a predictable pattern within a limited range of outcomes

That's not what I was saying but was alluding to the fact that we never know exactly which way a mutation may go until it actually happens. Yes, the overall rate is somewhat predictable but not the outcome, even though some mutations are more common than some others.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's not what I was saying but was alluding to the fact that we never know exactly which way a mutation may go until it actually happens. Yes, the overall rate is somewhat predictable but not the outcome, even though some mutations are more common than some others.

Your previous post was wrong, and this one remains foggy.It remains . . .

Not true. Mutations are not unpredictable, and always occur in a predictable pattern within a limited range of outcomes. Yes, the timing of any one mutation is random and not predictable, but over time mutations occur in a predictable pattern,