Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

That isn't how H. sapiens came about. We know there was interbreeding with Neanderthals, but that was well after H. sapiens already existed (Neanderthals are a *subspecies* of H. sapiens--sort of like breeds in dogs or cats).

We can track the anatomical similarities between the different ape-like species that have existed at various times in the last million years or so. We can see the changes over time leading to more and more similarity with modern humans.

OK, where is the dna proof that homo sapiens were interbreeding with Neanderthals, which now I hear you say they are like a subspecies? Similar to angora cats or something like that, if in fact they are considered a subspecies.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody said anything about machinery. The analogy was about the evolution of language, which is a pretty spot on analogy.
You have repeatedly avoided directly addressing it. Why?

Do you want to say that it's a mutation of the genes to pronounce words differently from language to language or have totally unrelated languages? I'd love to hear you opinion.
Others have said things like going from hunters-gatherers to farming and building tools as if that is part of evolutionary change almost as if it's genetic. When medical advances make better machines and methods, that is not what I consider to be biological evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing here is on point to answer my question:

What WOULD you consider to be an example of evolution?
\.

Good question. Do consider that humans are a result of evolution from a unicell billions or millions of years ago? No. I don't think it's possible. Do I consider that there can be or have been changes of dna from wolves to dogs? Possibly and likely. Do I think that humans evolved as hybrids or inbreeding from and with Neanderthals how many years ago? No.

 

[McBell]

Good question. Do consider that humans are a result of evolution from a unicell billions or millions of years ago? No. I don't think it's possible. Do I consider that there can be or have been changes of dna from wolves to dogs? Possibly and likely. Do I think that humans evolved as hybrids or inbreeding from and with Neanderthals how many years ago? No.

You were asked what WOULD convince you, not what WOULD NOT convince you.

Though at this point I figure you are afraid to answer because once you do, you are committed.
So if what you claim would convince you is presented, you would have a mighty comical back peddle session to engage in.

 

[Polymath257]

I find it interesting that so far all I have is your word about this. Anatomical similarities do not prove anything except that they are similar in certain respects. I mean, they say that chimpanzees are very, very close in DNA to homo sapiens. It's just that little bit of percentage that keeps chimpanzees from becoming homo sapiens, doesn't it? Or is it that it keeps chimpanzees staying as chimpanzees? Just that little percentage point. What happened from the 98.6 and 99% to the 100% DNA that humans have? Where is the in-between animal? You think it's the Neanderthals? And if you do, do Neanderthals have 100% human DNA?

Some of the intermediates from the common ancestor with chimps and modern humans are:

Australopithecus africanus
Homo habilus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaser

These are not only intermediate in form, but also intermediate in time. Not just similar in appearance, but also changing in form gradually from one to another through time.

Once again, we don't *expect* a single intermediate, but a sequence of such. And that is what we actually find.

What happened in the genes? Well, changes in control genes for growth of the skull and jaw, mostly. Some changes in the control genes for growth of legs. Some changes in the control genes for arms and hands. A merging of two chromosomes into one at some point. Loss of hair.

There really aren't that many *fundamental* differences between chimps and humans biologically. We started having larger societies, which made us more social (or, maybe the cause was the reverse). That lead to language use, which selected for structures in the neck to make speaking easier.

No, Neanderthals, by the latest information, are a subspecies of Homo sapiens and not an ancestor.

 

[Polymath257]

Good question. Do consider that humans are a result of evolution from a unicell billions or millions of years ago? No. I don't think it's possible.

And why not? Have you looked at the history of life on this planet? We know quite a lot about it.

Do I consider that there can be or have been changes of dna from wolves to dogs? Possibly and likely.

How about between some common ancestor, tigers and lions? Domestic house cats? Do you think it possible all felines are related by a common ancestor?

Do I think that humans evolved as hybrids or inbreeding from and with Neanderthals how many years ago? No.

Neanderthals were our cousins, not our ancestors. There was interbreeding, but that isn't what produced modern humans.

 

[Polymath257]

Good question. Do consider that humans are a result of evolution from a unicell billions or millions of years ago? No. I don't think it's possible. Do I consider that there can be or have been changes of dna from wolves to dogs? Possibly and likely. Do I think that humans evolved as hybrids or inbreeding from and with Neanderthals how many years ago? No.

You are not getting the point of the question. We aren't asking what you think actually happened. We are trying to understand what you think the word 'evolution' means. You say you don't believe it happened, but what does that mean?

And what type of evidence would convince you that single celled life from 3 billion years ago is continuous with humans today? How many of the intermediate stages do you need to see? Because, truthfully, we have examples of what many of those intermediate stages looked like alive today.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, where is the dna proof that homo sapiens were interbreeding with Neanderthals, which now I hear you say they are like a subspecies? Similar to angora cats or something like that, if in fact they are considered a subspecies.

Yes, that is what I am saying.Here's an overview article with references at the bottom:

Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans - Wikipedia

Here's the problem: you have shown a lot of difficulty understanding the basics of genetics (for example). Do you really think you can understand the articles giving this evidence before you understand the basics?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you want to say that it's a mutation of the genes to pronounce words differently from language to language or have totally unrelated languages?

Once again, it is an analogy. No, there are not changes in the genes producing differences in languages.

But that isn't the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is that there can be gradual change with no clear boundaries that leads to large scale changes over many generations.

And, in that it is a good analogy. During biological evolution, the genes in a population change gradually over time with no clear boundaries between species leading to large scale changes after many generations.

The 'species barrier' is just as real as the 'language barrier'. And, historically, languages shift and become new languages. Analogously, species shift and become new species. Languages can split and become more than one language from a single parent language. Analogously, species can split and become more than one species from a single parent species.

Do you understand that we are suggesting an analogy here?

I'd love to hear you opinion.
Others have said things like going from hunters-gatherers to farming and building tools as if that is part of evolutionary change almost as if it's genetic.

Who has claimed those changes as genetic? What I have seen is people saying that since there were anatomically modern humans before civilization, the development of writing, for example, is NOT genetic. Exactly the opposite of what you seem to think we said.

It is YOU that has suggested that writing, for example, was a distinguishing difference between humans and chimps. Our point is that difference is NOT genetic. It isn't biological. It is purely social. The genetic changes for humans had happened long, long before writing (or even art, as far as we can tell) developed.

When medical advances make better machines and methods, that is not what I consider to be biological evolution.

No, it is not. And nobody said it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes.

No. Obviously not.

In that case, I don't see how your comment made any sense. You said it as if it is only an explanation of the many dog breeds.

But now, you are saying (rightly so, i'll add) that these properties and processes are at work at all times in all populations of all species.


That IS evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"At least one fossil find." (Fossil find of what?) Please show me the links to this beyond assumption. Including the "dna testing." Quoting you: "We co-evolved." OK, co-evolved from what? Please submit evidence, thank you. What "dna testing"?

The dna of neanderthalis has been sequenced and compared to the sequenced dna of homo sapiens

Neanderthal genetics - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find it interesting that so far all I have is your word about this. Anatomical similarities do not prove anything except that they are similar in certain respects. I mean, they say that chimpanzees are very, very close in DNA to homo sapiens. It's just that little bit of percentage that keeps chimpanzees from becoming homo sapiens, doesn't it? Or is it that it keeps chimpanzees staying as chimpanzees? Just that little percentage point. What happened from the 98.6 and 99% to the 100% DNA that humans have? Where is the in-between animal? You think it's the Neanderthals? And if you do, do Neanderthals have 100% human DNA?

There is no "in between" chimps and homo sapiens, just like there is no "in between" you and your cousin.

Instead, you and your cousin share an ancestor. Just like homo sapiens and chimps share an ancestor.
The genetic difference points in %, is the amount both populations diverged from one another once the population split occured from the common ancestral population, and both thus became genetically isolated from one another, some 7 million years ago.

Chimps will not evolve into humans. Chimps will prduce more chimps and perhaps speciate into sub-species of chimps.

Homo sapiens isn't a sub-species of chimp. It's a cousin species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you want to say that it's a mutation of the genes to pronounce words differently from language to language or have totally unrelated languages? I'd love to hear you opinion.

How many times must it be repeated that the analogy of language development / evolution, is analogous in the sense of how accumulation of micro-change will inevitably lead to divergence of the language to the point where you just have to call it a new language? Like how latin turns into spanish and french?

Sure, language "mutates" every generation.
Go read an english text of a couple centuries ago. Chances are you won't even understand a lot of it. The older the text, the less familiar it will be. It's quite different from the english we speak and write today.

Same is true for biological evolution. The more you "rewind" your ancestral lineage, the lesser they'll look like humans the further you'll go back. As seen in the fossil record and as evidenced in our collective DNA and anatomy.

[qoute]
Others have said things like going from hunters-gatherers to farming and building tools as if that is part of evolutionary change almost as if it's genetic.[/quote]

Who exactly has said that and where?

When medical advances make better machines and methods, that is not what I consider to be biological evolution.

Nore does any biologist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good question. Do consider that humans are a result of evolution from a unicell billions or millions of years ago? No. I don't think it's possible. Do I consider that there can be or have been changes of dna from wolves to dogs? Possibly and likely. Do I think that humans evolved as hybrids or inbreeding from and with Neanderthals how many years ago? No.

Why is it so hard for you to give a straight answer to this question?
I'm not asking what you believe.

I'm asking you what you WOULD consider an example of evolution.
You are very vocal about what you do NOT consider to be evolution but you consistently fail to give an example of what you WOULD consider to be evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even IF evolution were true, as you see it, what proof or evidence do you have that Neanderthals and other hominids like that interbred to the point that homo sapiens came about?

Evolution is a biological fact. It happens.

Evidence that Neanderthals and other hominids interbred? Well, genome sequencing offers those clues, as well as the fossil record. Have you Googled comparative genomics yet?
Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced
Hominin interbreeding and the evolution of human variation
Interbreeding
Neanderthal Genome Sequenced
Dept. of Genetics | Neandertal | Home

Neanderthals did not breed with some other hominids to produce homo sapiens though, if that's what you're thinking. Homo sapiens and Neanderthal actually co-existed for many years, which is how some of them managed to interbreed with each other. Of course, that's the simplified version. There are other posters here who can and have given much more detailed responses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find it interesting that so far all I have is your word about this. Anatomical similarities do not prove anything except that they are similar in certain respects. I mean, they say that chimpanzees are very, very close in DNA to homo sapiens. It's just that little bit of percentage that keeps chimpanzees from becoming homo sapiens, doesn't it? Or is it that it keeps chimpanzees staying as chimpanzees? Just that little percentage point. What happened from the 98.6 and 99% to the 100% DNA that humans have? Where is the in-between animal? You think it's the Neanderthals? And if you do, do Neanderthals have 100% human DNA?

Um no. You don't just have one poster's word for it. You have mountains of scientific evidence that demonstrates it, literally at your fingertips. You don't have to rely on one guy's word for it. You can have access to all the evidence you could ever want, if you were only curious enough to take the time to find it.

Chimps will never turn into humans. Creatures don't morph into other creatures nor do they give birth to creatures that are different from themselves. This has been explained to you. That simply is not how evolution works. I implore you to pay attention to the detailed explanations that the science-minded posters around here have been kind enough to provide.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you want to say that it's a mutation of the genes to pronounce words differently from language to language or have totally unrelated languages? I'd love to hear you opinion.

No.

Others have said things like going from hunters-gatherers to farming and building tools as if that is part of evolutionary change almost as if it's genetic. When medical advances make better machines and methods, that is not what I consider to be biological evolution.

What I'm interested in, is you grasping the point being presented to you via analogy.

 

[metis]

"At least one fossil find." (Fossil find of what?) Please show me the links to this beyond assumption. Including the "dna testing." Quoting you: "We co-evolved." OK, co-evolved from what? Please submit evidence, thank you. What "dna testing"?

Maybe consider googling it yourself. I taught this for over 30 years, and I have no interest in wasting my time with those who simply don't do their homework nor have any serious interest in what the scientific community worldwide has known for well over a century. Do you really think that we're that ignorant and not familiar with the evidence; or that we are so morally corrupt that we want to spread lies?

If your church teaches you that the ToE contradicts the Bible and our Christian faith, then maybe do what I did when I left my old church, finding one that is invested in telling the truth about the ToE and the Bible itself.

Sorry to be so abrupt, but I gotta leave.

 

[Audie]

Um no. You don't just have one poster's word for it. You have mountains of scientific evidence that demonstrates it, literally at your fingertips. You don't have to rely on one guy's word for it. You can have access to all the evidence you could ever want, if you were only curious enough to take the time to find it.

Chimps will never turn into humans. Creatures don't morph into other creatures nor do they give birth to creatures that are different from themselves. This has been explained to you. That simply is not how evolution works. I implore you to pay attention to the detailed explanations that the science-minded posters around here have been kind enough to provide.

It seems very probable though that given the right circumstances
there could be chimps whose descendants would be bipeds with
much larger brains than today's chimps.

Would he look like us?
If one of those hopped in a time machine and came back to now,
I think we'd all move away from him if he got on the subway.

 

[Audie]

No.


What I'm interested in, is you grasping the point being presented to you via analogy.

Nobody is exactly the same as their parents. Always some
mutations. How can that be hard to understand.