I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Valjean]

All what is deemed as evidence does not prove anything as to the idea of evolution of humans by "natural selection" from some as of yet some absolutely undiscovered ape. It doesn't matter what you or scientists claim about this anymore. There is no proof, no test, no verifiable residues that show one or many cells expanding or growing and gradually getting to the sizes of living things like trees and animals.

Stop it with this "proof." You know you're constructing a straw man. It's been pointed out to you a hundred times.
Please name one thing that you believe that's proved. I'll bet you believe lots of things that are less well evidenced than evolution.

I understand what you are saying, I used to believe it until I began looking closer at the scientific surmises. Beyond conjectures there is nothing. No proof, no fossils, no evidence. The evidence is truly not there, no matter how many scientists say it is.

Then you did not 'look closer' at the science, and clearly did not understand the evidence presented.

Bones with varying elements of DNA do not prove evolution. They prove that animals and plants have DNA. That's what it proves.

Stop it with the "prove," already!
Prove to me the Earth circles the Sun -- you cannot.
Nothing is proved. Everything is merely evidenced -- to varying degrees.

The evidence is there, and consilient evidence from multiple disciplines, as well.

 

[Valjean]

Sounds like you are being religious Astrophile.

@YoursTrue interesting that people who believe evolution, are so happy to give us their reasoning and interpretations for their beliefs, and criticize religious people for these things.

But there is no reasoning behind their beliefs. Their beliefs are not the product of reason or facts. Their beliefs are faith-based -- an entirely different thing.

 

[Valjean]

Speciation from fish to landlubbers has not been "observed." Speculation (of speciation) is certainly heralded by many, but where is there observation? Please provide observable proof or data of the "speciation" you are referring to. Thank you.

We do have observable and well-documented mechanisms of speciation.

We've never observed continental drift, the rise and fall of mountains, or the carving of hoodoos, either. Just because visible change doesn't happen in a human lifetime doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The Earth is old.
...or do you believe it's only been around 6,000 years?

 

[Valjean]

What's a natural process? Can you give examples?
The reason I ask, is because the baker who puts the ingredients into a bowl; mixes them up, and puts the mixture in the oven, does not consider his bread to be a product of natural processes.
Should he?

He doesn't?! Why wouldn't he? Do you believe the baker believes it's all magic?
The biological and chemical process involved in making bread are natural processes, following known, natural laws.

Likewise, the one who planned what the end product of the universe would be, may put a lot of work into the "ingredients" necessary to reach that goal.

Wait! -- there's a planned end product of the universe? Where are you coming up with this completely unevidenced premise?

Should that be called a natural process?

No. This whole premise exits only in your imagination, and you're using it to support further assertions of an intentional creator and planning.

Is a machine in a factory, a natural process, since it doesn't require the designer to manually process every action?

Stop it, nPeace. You're misrepresenting the position of your opponents, again -- and intentionally, since the watchmaker error has been explained here many times.

 

[Valjean]

Hmmm. ...and you expect to see God creating, even though we know that designed objects require an intelligent designer. Yet you have not seen nature make humans and apes. Amazing!

Stop pretending that the watchmaker error hasn't been explained to you.

 

[Valjean]

Speciation from fish to landlubbers has not been "observed." Speculation (of speciation) is certainly heralded by many, but where is there observation? Please provide observable proof or data of the "speciation" you are referring to. Thank you.

How about a transitional form?

 

[Valjean]

Valjean said:
We know nothing of the sort. (that designed objects require an intelligent designer)

Of course you don't. We know ignorant people exist though. Right?

You're dodging the question.

Valjean said: ↑
You presume this. (ibid)

No. This is standard.
Unreasonable people want to change it, by presuming otherwise.

No. Intelligent design is not standard; you've seen it debunked. And ours are not presumptions. Our assertions are evidence-based.

Valjean said: ↑
We wouldn't expect to 'see' nature make humans and apes, but we can observe the process in action easily enough.

You observe the process of nature making humans and apes!!!? How?

Stop twisting my words. We can observe the processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, gene flow, &c.

Valjean said: ↑
We haven't seen Latin turn into Spanish, either, or the continents diverge. Not all processes need be observed from start to "finish" to be understood and accepted.

How did Latin "turn into Spanish"?

Seriously? Don't play games.

Valjean said: ↑
What child first spoke a language different from its parents?

You tell me.

Stop it. Don't pretend you don't se my point. You can't be that obtuse.

Valjean said: ↑
I don't understand how you find gradualism so perplexing.

I am not perplexed about gradualism.
I am not perplexed at conjectures and extrapolations either... which results in fairytale stories from evolution believers.

You know pefectly well that our assertions are not conjecture, and you know that it's your world-view that's conjecture. Your's is the fairy tale.

Valjean said: ↑
You're also being disingenuous -- you know perfectly well noöne's claiming any ape sprang de novo from a non-ape.

What???
I ask a question, and you think I am being dishonest!
Listen.... If you make stupid claims, be prepared to respond to questions showing how stupid the claim is... Otherwise, don't make them.

You asked:

"what birthed the first ape, and what year did you see it happen?"

You're misrepresenting what I said with another ridiculous straw man.

 

[Valjean]

Let's start with "chemical reactions".
In order for chemicals to react they must interact.
This happens naturally, is what you are saying?
So you are saying that chemicals naturally formed, and then naturally interact?

I'm just trying to understand you.
The laws of physics. You believe they formed naturally as well? From what natural process?

Stop it, nPeace. You know perfectly well that we're claiming that everything we observe chemistry and physics doing is natural, unguided and automatic.

 

[Valjean]

If this is acceptable, then…
“One does not need to identify the common Creator in order to determine that there was a common Creator”…
should be an acceptable answer, too. We see purposeful design everywhere we look!
Just saying “we don’t know the designer”, is not an acceptable reason to deny the complementary designs.
…

But we do not see purpose, we see function. You assume purpose.

You assume complexity and purposive function indicate intentional design, yet the mechanisms that produced the complexity and function have been described by science. They don't rely on planning or intention. They're automatic, like water running downhill.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not think not being able to identify an ancestor is the same as declaring the existence of a Creator out of lack of evidence for that Creator.

Do you doubt that you had ancestors 3,000 years ago simply because you cannot identify them?

Do you accept. admit, and believe that chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and humans emerged (evolved) from what is purportedly acknowledged as an "Unknown Common Ancestor"?

 

[nPeace]

No, God is a special pleading. The only reason someone would make up such a bizarre story of an invisible personage manipulating things by magic is to preserve the mythology they base their life on. Threatening the myth threatens their ego-integrity.

Your beliefs do sound good to you, don't they?
They mean nothing here.

Isn't it equally plausible that the Earth and the life on it was created by hyper-intelligent, interdimensional mice? We haven't seen it.
How do we know it didn't happen that way?

How about elephant monkeys?

It's not about you. It's not about what works for you. It's about objective truth, regardless its effect, convenience or utility.

Objective truth is not what you or anyone else decides it to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

Stop it, nPeace. You know perfectly well that we're claiming that everything we observe chemistry and physics doing is natural, unguided and automatic.

I hate to get involved, but I will. Just based on that sentence alone, are you saying that the making of the atomic bomb is natural, unguided and automatic?

 

[YoursTrue]

But we do not see purpose, we see function. You assume purpose.

You assume complexity and purposive function indicate intentional design, yet the mechanisms that produced the complexity and function have been described by science. They don't rely on planning or intention. They're automatic, like water running downhill.

OK, as far as purpose, many people believe there is no purpose to life. And that goes along with the theory of evolution. It just -- is. Humans live several decades -- then they die. Right? They have children in many cases because that's what they are inclined to do naturally and culturally. Many are claiming that the human generation is in peril, even if some believe the earth will continue for a while, they claim the sun will burn up, explode, and of course before that life will be gone on the earth. Is that what you believe? Some say make the best of it (whatever is the best for them)...children born maimed -- people hurting one another -- pollution -- devastation -- horrifying treatment of others -- soup kitchens -- all tied up with the theory of evolution, isn't that the truth?

 

[nPeace]

Why would any rational person believe a cherry-picked, highly edited, miscopied, factually erroneous, self-contradictory, hearsay collection of ancient stories, by unknown authors, making fantastic claims noöne would believe if reported today -- even by eyewitnesses?

Aren't there dozens of such anthologies, making alternative claims, from different religious traditions? What makes the Bible any more credible?

The Quran, for example, claims to be a unified work by a single author. Wouldn't it be more credible than the Bible?

nPeace, you believe the Bible because it's familiar to you. It was installed before you had any rational firewalls; before you had any critical thinking skills. It's part of your ROM.
It's believed by your parents and status community. It gives you comfort and reassurance. It's a part of a supportive community.

Had you been born in Riyadh, I daresay you'd be a devout Muslim.

Why would anyone believe your baseless self-opinionated claims presented as though they have some sort of foundation, but which are clearly built on ignorance?

I'm happy to wait .

 

[Valjean]

Your beliefs do sound good to you, don't they?
They mean nothing here.
How about elephant monkeys?

Evasion.

Objective truth is not what you or anyone else decides it to be.

This we all agree with. But religion does not seek objective truth. It usually seeks to suppress it. It's threatened by science, critical analysis and logic.
It' science that's been uncovering objective truth, recently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, as far as purpose, many people believe there is no purpose to life. And that goes along with the theory of evolution. It just -- is. Humans live several decades -- then they die. Right? They have children in many cases because that's what they are inclined to do naturally and culturally. Many are claiming that the human generation is in peril, even if some believe the earth will continue for a while, they claim the sun will burn up, explode, and of course before that life will be gone on the earth. Is that what you believe? Some say make the best of it (whatever is the best for them)...children born maimed -- people hurting one another -- pollution -- devastation -- horrifying treatment of others -- soup kitchens -- all tied up with the theory of evolution, isn't that the truth?

Life itself does not appear to have any purpose of its own. I have as yet to see any evidence for such a purpose. Do not make the mistake of assuming that means that one's own life cannot have a purpose. The purpose that one's life has comes from the person, Not from an outside source. as far as I can see.

 

[Valjean]

Do you accept. admit, and believe that chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and humans emerged (evolved) from what is purportedly acknowledged as an "Unknown Common Ancestor"?

You're asking questions you know the answer to. I assume this is leading to some point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would anyone believe your baseless self-opinionated claims presented as though they have some sort of foundation, but which are clearly built on ignorance?

I'm happy to wait .

That appears to be a bit of a personal attack. Instead you should be asking him why he believes that or what his evidence for that belief is. I don't think that it is baseless. He did give several reasons for his beliefs in the post that you responded to. Didn't you see them? If not his accusation of cherry picking appears to be spot on.

 

[nPeace]

I hate to get involved, but I will. Just based on that sentence alone, are you saying that the making of the atomic bomb is natural, unguided and automatic?

I don't see anyone just saying "stop it" in every post to be responding rationally. Emotional yes. Reason is now totally lost, it seems.

 

[nPeace]

Evasion.
This we all agree with. But religion does not seek objective truth. It usually seeks to suppress it. It's threatened by science, critical analysis and logic.
It' science that's been uncovering objective truth, recently.

This is a baseless claim.
That's like saying only men in white lab coats investigate truth. That's ludicrous.