Evidence For And Against Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

I never said that dna material is not heritable. I believe it is, otherwise inherited defects wouldn't happen, for one thing.

That is the implication derived from the arguments and statements you are attempting to make.

Are you aware that you are made up of 50% of your mother's DNA, and 50% of your father's DNA? Are you aware that your parents are made up of 50% of each of their parent's DNA?
How do you think we trace our ancestry back through time, and why do you think it's any different with any of the other creatures on this earth who have also evolved, just like us?

Also, I asked you two questions in that post, in an attempt to clarify what you are talking about. Could you please answer them?

Evolution is a fact. That there is a "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" is a fact.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm agreeing with Isaac Newton's perception of the thumb as evidence of God.

Why???
You've provided no explanation whatsoever, despite my already asking for one.

As far as combinations and quantities which can be similar or different, I am talking about the fact that there are similar dna factors but not in the same quantity from bonobos to humans. And that little difference may mean all the differencej in the world as factors of capabilities. I leave it at that for now.

What are "dna factors?"

Does the fact that you share less DNA with your great-grandfather than you do with your mother mean that you are not related to your great-grandfather? Of course not.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a demonstrable fact, whether you "think so" or not.
Sorry to tell you.

Evolution is the backbone of biology. Do you not accept biology either?


Honestly, I'm not sure you recognize what evidence is when you see it. I mean, I don't see your position as coming from a place of evidential support. And that's while you demand mountains of evidential support for scientific theories that have already met their burden of proof.

Yes, I accept biology in that a muskrat is a muskrat and biologically so, meaning it is composed of sequence of genes that make it a muskrat and not a human. I don't demand evidence simply because any so-called evidence in many respects is that which not seen in the making. Meanwhile, I'll go back to the biological(?) evidence showing that while there is dna in chimpanzees very close to humans, it doesn't mean that whatever of the apes evolved and became humans. As I said, that's me.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you just apparently deny the fact that genetic material (DNA) is heritable. That is a demonstrably false claim.

I don't know what you mean by "combinations and quantities can be similar or different." Can you elaborate?


Are you now abandoning the claim that opposable thumbs are evidence for some creator God?

Here's the problem I see re dna of chimps and that of humans. It isn't the same. Stays consistently that chimp dna is not human dna. That wasn't hard, was it?

 

[metis]

Genes, like all material objects, change over time, therefore we are not chimps but the evidence strongly suggests that we have a common ancestry of some sort with them. But this in no way negates a belief that one may have in God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Genes, like all material objects, change over time, therefore we are not chimps but the evidence strongly suggests that we have a common ancestry of some sort with them. But this in no way negates a belief that one may have in God.

We've had various discussions before this. And you and I have big differences regarding the interpretation of the Bible. In the interest of keeping it short, in the account of the creation of man, God said Let us make man in our image. So, summing it up, there was something different vastly from the other creation. Sorry to go back to chimpanzees again although I like cats better as a pet, but according to the account, man alone (Adam and Eve)--not muskrats, dogs, rabbits or gorillas, were told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I accept biology in that a muskrat is a muskrat and biologically so, meaning it is composed of sequence of genes that make it a muskrat and not a human. I don't demand evidence simply because any so-called evidence in many respects is that which not seen in the making. Meanwhile, I'll go back to the biological(?) evidence showing that while there is dna in chimpanzees very close to humans, it doesn't mean that whatever of the apes evolved and became humans. As I said, that's me.

You are aware that we can sequence the dna of a bunch of people and use that to build a family tree by establishing how they relate to eachother, right?

How do you explain that whenever we do this cross species, we end up with the same family tree?
Wheter we use entire genomes or specific sections of DNA, or even single genes and/or other genetic markers.... like ERV's for example (remnants of viral infections that inserted into the genome in an ancestor)... we always end up with the same family tree of species. It's called phylogenetics.

Why is this so?

When we do this with only humans, you likely accept that it's a valid family tree.
If we do this with only horses, you likely accept it as well (the commerce certainly accepts it - there's big money in specific bloodlines).

So why is it no longer accepted once it's done cross species?

The principles are the exact same. There's not suddenly a "special" test or a "special" method.

It's the simple fact that DNA is hereditary and also mutates. This is why we can can compare DNA, count the matches, measure the differences and conclude if it concerns siblings, off spring, cousins, distant cousins, very distant cousins, etc. To the point that we can even estimate how many years ago the common ancestor lived.


So why is it accepted for horses on the one hand and humans on the other, but not for horses and humans?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's the problem I see re dna of chimps and that of humans. It isn't the same.

If it were the same, they wouldn't be different species..................................


Just like if the DNA of 2 distant cousins weren't that different, then they wouldn't be distant cousins, but close cousins... or they'ld be siblings or twins depending on how much it is "the same".

Stays consistently that chimp dna is not human dna. That wasn't hard, was it?

It also stays consistently that distant cousin DNA will be distant cousin DNA and not sibling DNA.

Indeed it's not hard, so why are you trying to make it hard?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We've had various discussions before this. And you and I have big differences regarding the interpretation of the Bible. In the interest of keeping it short, in the account of the creation of man, God said Let us make man in our image. So, summing it up, there was something different vastly from the other creation. Sorry to go back to chimpanzees again although I like cats better as a pet, but according to the account, man alone (Adam and Eve)--not muskrats, dogs, rabbits or gorillas, were told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Your story about the magic garden with the supernatural fruit and the talking snake is not relevant to the point that DNA univocally shows that species share ancestry. In exactly the same way that DNA can tell the difference between siblings and cousins.

 

[metis]

In the interest of keeping it short, in the account of the creation of man, God said Let us make man in our image.

So, summing it up, there was something different vastly from the other creation.

There are a great many statements in all scriptures in all religions that probably shouldn't be taken literally, and the Bible is just one of them.

Sorry to go back to chimpanzees again although I like cats better as a pet, but according to the account, man alone (Adam and Eve)--not muskrats, dogs, rabbits or gorillas, were told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Who was there to write about Adam & Eve? How about at "creation"? Even what's in these accounts there are what theologians call "variations", thus differences dealing with the same event.

Thus, the 1:1 version of Creation does not exactly match the 2:4 version as the order is slightly different. Now we are at least fairly certain that this is likely because there were different authors writing at different times about it.

To pretend that the Biblical narratives are 100% accurate is to get close to a form of idolatry, simply because it takes and object and makes it as being both perfect and godly. IOW, the Bible is about God but is not God, nor is it some sort of God soundtrack.

We know with certainty that evolution has occurred and that we humans were involved, so for someone nowadays to ignore this is to basically turn their beliefs into sort of a medieval form of mythology. The real key is to recognize God as Creator but not to ignore how God created, which was not all at one time but was sequenced over long periods of time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's the problem I see re dna of chimps and that of humans. It isn't the same. Stays consistently that chimp dna is not human dna. That wasn't hard, was it?

It's about 98.8% the same between humans and chimps and bonobos.
It's about 98.4% the same between humans and gorillas. Even more interesting here is that humans, chimps and bonobos all share the same amount of difference from gorillas (about 1.6%).
It's about 96% the same between humans and orangutans.
It's about 94% the same between humans and rhesus monkeys. All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys by the same degree.

In other words, the more closely related we are, the more similar our DNA is. Just like how we share more DNA with our mother than we do with our great-grandfather, even though we are all related - just to differing degrees.

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[YoursTrue]

There are a great many statements in all scriptures in all religions that probably shouldn't be taken literally, and the Bible is just one of them.

I see no reason not to take the account of the creation of Adam and Eve literally insofar as the difference by and through God as to their uniqueness from the other creation. Also the fact that they did what God told them not to do, and so they incurred death upon themselves. It is because of Adam and Eve that mankind inherited sin. And that some of us are aware of the concept of sin. I highly doubt that animals (the ones like ants, gorillas, etc.) are aware of any sin. And to ask me how I know this, I'll go back to Isaac Newton's apt statement when he declared he knows gravity by happenstance. If you get the idea. I haven't had (thankfully) any animals tell me about it. Since I like to keep my comments as brief as possible, I'll stop there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no reason not to take the account of the creation of Adam and Eve literally insofar as the difference by and through God as to their uniqueness from the other creation. Also the fact that they did what God told them not to do, and so they incurred death upon themselves. It is because of Adam and Eve that mankind inherited sin. And that some of us are aware of the concept of sin. I highly doubt that animals (the ones like ants, gorillas, etc.) are aware of any sin. And to ask me how I know this, I'll go back to Isaac Newton's apt statement when he declared he knows gravity by happenstance. If you get the idea. I haven't had (thankfully) any animals tell me about it. Since I like to keep my comments as brief as possible, I'll stop there.

You do not appear to be aware of the strong evidence that there never were only two people.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's about 98.8% the same between humans and chimps and bonobos.
It's about 98.4% the same between humans and gorillas. Even more interesting here is that humans, chimps and bonobos all share the same amount of difference from gorillas (about 1.6%).
It's about 96% the same between humans and orangutans.
It's about 94% the same between humans and rhesus monkeys. All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys by the same degree.

In other words, the more closely related we are, the more similar our DNA is. Just like how we share more DNA with our mother than we do with our great-grandfather, even though we are all related - just to differing degrees.

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

This has nothing to do with why mankind is so obviously cognitively different from-- um-- without prejudice, gorillas. Of course, it's obvious to me, I guess not everybody. Gorillas can swing from trees far better than humans can. Except Tarzan, I suppose, and maybe a few others. In the imagination of -- men. Using the term men ubiquitously, because, to explain, it embraces men AND women..
Tarzans do not achieve the level of swinging from trees like gorillas have. I think gorillas are interesting, although I'm drawn to cats and kittens moreso right now. Although people still figuring out what's what with cats, dogs, gorillas and humans. I might go to a zoo and see gorillas and say to myself, hmm, that's interesting. And I won't say a gorilla won't want .to play around, or look. But !! if you think humans and gorillas are results of pure evolution, ok. That's your take on things.Despite genes being comparable, who's to say that many pots come from the same soil area? Or that the potter cannot or should not make a container with a spout or a cup and saucer.

 

[Bear Wild]

This has nothing to do with why mankind is so obviously cognitively different from-- um-- without prejudice, gorillas. Of course, it's obvious to me, I guess not everybody. Gorillas can swing from trees far better than humans can. Except Tarzan, I suppose, and maybe a few others. In the imagination of -- men. Using the term men ubiquitously, because, to explain, it embraces men AND women..
Tarzans do not achieve the level of swinging from trees like gorillas have. I think gorillas are interesting, although I'm drawn to cats and kittens moreso right now. Although people still figuring out what's what with cats, dogs, gorillas and humans. I might go to a zoo and see gorillas and say to myself, hmm, that's interesting. And I won't say a gorilla won't want .to play around, or look. But !! if you think humans and gorillas are results of pure evolution, ok. That's your take on things.Despite genes being comparable, who's to say that many pots come from the same soil area? Or that the potter cannot or should not make a container with a spout or a cup and saucer.

When you speak of a potter are you talking about Harry Potter, a potter in an art class or the potter that created my teapot from Scotland with sheep on it? Making pottery has nothing to do with evolution so there is no connection in your analogy unless you can demonstrates that pots and cups can make other pots and cups with variation. Never seen it myself.

Tarzan was a fictional character, you do realize that correct? The movies make special vine like props for the movie Tarzan to swing. It really makes no sense to bring up a fictional character into the comparison of gorillas and men unless you are trying to demonstrate that the myth in the bible is just as useless in understanding life on earth.

Mankind is cognitively different with respect to language but still has more in common with gorillas and other apes. What this shows is the evolutionary advantage of social behavior which was advanced with the genetic changes to allow for complex language. That is all it is. Language and particularly written language created the illusion of the gap you are referring to. In the end we are all still apes.

 

[metis]

I see no reason not to take the account of the creation of Adam and Eve literally insofar as the difference by and through God as to their uniqueness from the other creation.

A great many theologians, both in Christianity and Judaism, are more inclined to view these accounts as being allegorical, thus probably a refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian account that was polytheistic.

In anthropology, we call these "myths", which does not mean "false" but means stories meant to teach lessons. All cultures do this, btw.

I highly doubt that animals (the ones like ants, gorillas, etc.) are aware of any sin.

But at least the "higher level" of animals do have a sense of right and wrong, largely genetically linked but not exclusive to that. We humans also have that inner propensity as well. Almost all social species need to have a "pecking order" in order for survival.

Since I like to keep my comments as brief as possible, I'll stop there.

Ditto.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This has nothing to do with why mankind is so obviously cognitively different from-- um-- without prejudice, gorillas. Of course, it's obvious to me, I guess not everybody. Gorillas can swing from trees far better than humans can. Except Tarzan, I suppose, and maybe a few others. In the imagination of -- men. Using the term men ubiquitously, because, to explain, it embraces men AND women..
Tarzans do not achieve the level of swinging from trees like gorillas have. I think gorillas are interesting, although I'm drawn to cats and kittens moreso right now. Although people still figuring out what's what with cats, dogs, gorillas and humans. I might go to a zoo and see gorillas and say to myself, hmm, that's interesting. And I won't say a gorilla won't want .to play around, or look. But !! if you think humans and gorillas are results of pure evolution, ok. That's your take on things.Despite genes being comparable, who's to say that many pots come from the same soil area? Or that the potter cannot or should not make a container with a spout or a cup and saucer.

It demonstrates that all creatures on the planet are related, to varying degrees - the more closely related they are, the more DNA they share in common. Just like you and your human family members. Which is exactly what we'd expect to see, if evolution were a fact of reality. it's not what I would expect to see if some God made every creature on Earth individually from scratch.

Of course, it is evident from looking at a gorilla and a human, that we are closely related. Just like how when you look at a finch and a crow, you can tell they're related, even though they're different species. The fact that they share large amounts of DNA is further evidence of that.



Sorry but I don't think your point that human beings are so special is relevant to the discussion. I bet dogs and cats think they're pretty special too. So what?
Besides, I was not speaking to that point to begin with.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see no reason not to take the account of the creation of Adam and Eve literally insofar as the difference by and through God as to their uniqueness from the other creation. Also the fact that they did what God told them not to do, and so they incurred death upon themselves. It is because of Adam and Eve that mankind inherited sin. And that some of us are aware of the concept of sin. I highly doubt that animals (the ones like ants, gorillas, etc.) are aware of any sin. And to ask me how I know this, I'll go back to Isaac Newton's apt statement when he declared he knows gravity by happenstance. If you get the idea. I haven't had (thankfully) any animals tell me about it. Since I like to keep my comments as brief as possible, I'll stop there.

That seems to be what the problem is here. You accept this based on zero evidence. You just accept it because you see no reason not to.
If we want to think logically and reasonably, we'd need a reason to accept it. As in, we need evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This has nothing to do with why mankind is so obviously cognitively different from-- um-- without prejudice, gorillas.

The difference isn't as big as you like to think.

Of course, it's obvious to me, I guess not everybody

Yes, the difference is obvious. Just like the difference between chimps and gorilla's is obvious.
The difference, obvious as it is, simply isn't as big as you think (or hope?) that it is.

For example, for a very long time, humans believed we were the only ones who were "self-aware" and that other animals operated far more on instinct with far less awareness of the "self".

And then in experiments, we see gorilla's and chimps pass the "spot test". Meaning that they ARE self aware and recognize themselves in the mirror.

A cat or dog, for example, does not pass the spot test. All the great apes do. (humans are great apes also), which means all great apes share this "advanced" cognitive ability, which for a very long time was assumed to be a human-only trait. "Aren't we special?". Turns out, we aren't.

Gorillas can swing from trees far better than humans can. Except Tarzan, I suppose, and maybe a few others.

No chimps and gorilla's are better at it then any human. Including crazy stunt artists from Cirque Du Soleil.

But !! if you think humans and gorillas are results of pure evolution, ok.

That's demonstrably the case as shown by the enormous amounts of evidence. Regardless of what anyone "thinks".

That's your take on things

No. That's what the evidence demonstrates.

Despite genes being comparable, who's to say that many pots come from the same soil area?

False analogy.
Comparative genomics reveal a family tree. Every single time. Regardless if you use full genomes, certain sections of dna, single genes or other genetic markers.

This tree matches comparative anatomy, the fossil record, geographic distribution of species,...
There literally is NO DATA AT ALL that contradicts this family tree. ALL data converges on that same answer. ALL data.

Or that the potter cannot or should not make a container with a spout or a cup and saucer.

Nested hierarchies (= family trees) is the very last pattern one would expect from someone who creates a product line.

In fact, any engineer who would design products in that way would be fired faster then you can say "nested hierarchies", due to being either a wasteful, inefficient, incompetent amateur or an epic money/resource-wasting troll if it was done on purpose.

 

[YoursTrue]

That seems to be what the problem is here. You accept this based on zero evidence. You just accept it because you see no reason not to.
If we want to think logically and reasonably, we'd need a reason to accept it. As in, we need evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim.

Sometimes I watch real life mysteries. And sometimes people lie, make up stories, and more. Even surmises based on reality. And sometimes they're wrong about the conclusion. And some juries convict based on what they think, see, and hear. And sometimes they see evidence used to push either side. And again, sometimes they're wrong.