I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Subduction Zone]

The idea that there is approximately 98% DNA similarity between gorillas, bonobos and humans does not demonstrate or evidence that the idea of evolution is true.

You know better than this. It is evidence for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe or think that science, including that of the science of the theory of evolution, proves, demonstrates, or shows (your choice of word) that evolution is true and there is no intelligent superior force designing and enabling the structure of living things?

Okay, drop the "proves" word if you want to discuss science, unless you add a qualifier science does not "prove" anything. Does it prove by the legal definition? Yes, it does that. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt. And evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If you deny that then you do not understand evidence, science, logic, and the burden of proof..

The problem with ID is that there is no scientific evidence for it. Believers in ID at this forum confirm this on a regular basis.

 

[YoursTrue]

The taxonomy and fossil records add up. Can you demonstrate a point at which they do not? I suspect you are just not ready to let go of the idea that a magic being helped life along.
Because the superior intelligence can be nature. Nature has vast creative powers. Weather you study the universe, physics, chemistry. Amazing power. There is no need for a creative power to be conscious.

Anyway, you misunderstand the passage. It doesn't mean you can't learn about the natural world? It's about demanding to be made different.

"But Paul turns the question back on mankind: Who are we, as mortal human beings, to answer back to God? God is the One who molded Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and who puts all of us together in our mother's womb (Psalm 139:13). Can the one who is molded talk back to the One who molded him and demand he ought to have been made in some other way?"
The assumed answer, of course, is no. Created things don't talk back to their maker. Neither do human beings have the right to moralize to their Creator about His choices. He is God. We are not. As crippling as it might be to our own sense of pride, we must start with the realization that God has no obligation to us. He owes us nothing: not mercy, not love, not grace. That, in fact, is one reason the gospel is so incredible. The love and mercy God shows to us, in providing for our salvation, is something absolutely and completely unearned and undeserved.

Regarding your point about records adding up. Without going into detail now, the idea that fossils have been ascertained to be from a loonnnggg time ago (millions or billions of years, perhaps) is not convincing evidence that tetrapods evolved by mutation or natural selection from fish. It can be evidence that there were tetrapods and non-tetrapods (fish).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regarding your point about records adding up. Without going into detail now, the idea that fossils have been ascertained to be from a loonnnggg time ago (millions or billions of years, perhaps) is not convincing evidence that tetrapods evolved by mutation or natural selection from fish. It can be evidence that there were tetrapods and non-tetrapods (fish).

Why would you think that they do not have "much of an idea". This is pure projection. Just because you may not have much of an idea does not mean that others suffer from the same lack of information.

 

[metis]

Without going into detail now, the idea that fossils have been ascertained to be from a loonnnggg time ago (millions or billions of years, perhaps) is not convincing evidence that tetrapods evolved by mutation or natural selection from fish. It can be evidence that there were tetrapods and non-tetrapods (fish).

If not, then why is it that we've never seen human or mammal fossils back at the time of the Cambrian Explosion but we've found myriads of fossils from other less-complex organisms?

The general pattern we've seen is clear: life forms have evolved over time, and this is not speculation, and "speciation" shows us that it's still going on today: Speciation - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

If not, then why is it that we've never seen human or mammal fossils back at the time of the Cambrian Explosion but we've found myriads of fossils from other less-complex organisms?

The general pattern we've seen is clear: life forms have evolved over time, and this is not speculation, and "speciation" shows us that it's still going on today: Speciation - Wikipedia

Allow me to say that my understanding of the creation account is that fish came before land dwellers and then came humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

If not, then why is it that we've never seen human or mammal fossils back at the time of the Cambrian Explosion but we've found myriads of fossils from other less-complex organisms?

The general pattern we've seen is clear: life forms have evolved over time, and this is not speculation, and "speciation" shows us that it's still going on today: Speciation - Wikipedia

In addition to my last response according to the Bible God first prepared the earth's atmosphere for life to exist on the earth. I say that because life that we do not see in the form of angels and spirit persons (God and Jesus now, for instance) are alive. Their habitation is different from that of the earth, which God prepared for its habitation.
I am sure you are familiar with the following verses from the 121st Psalm:
"He will not let your foot slip—
he who watches over you will not slumber;
4indeed, he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep."

 

[Astrophile]

Allow me to say that my understanding of the creation account is that fish came before land dwellers and then came humans.

Yes and no. As I understand it, there were 'fish', in the sense of marine vertebrates that breathed through gills, before the first land animals, but the modern orders of ray-finned fish evolved after the first tetrapods. The evolution of fish didn't stop after the first appearance of land animals.

 

[joelr]

Regarding your point about records adding up. Without going into detail now, the idea that fossils have been ascertained to be from a loonnnggg time ago (millions or billions of years, perhaps) is not convincing evidence that tetrapods evolved by mutation or natural selection from fish. It can be evidence that there were tetrapods and non-tetrapods (fish).

The earliest amphibians evolved in the Devonian period from sarcopterygian fish with lungs and bony-limbed fins, features that were helpful in adapting to dry land. They diversified and became dominant during the Carboniferous and Permian periods, but were later displaced by reptiles and other vertebrates. Over time, amphibians shrank in size and decreased in diversity, leaving only the modern subclass Lissamphibia.

You would have to look at how sarcopterygian fish slowly evolved to amphibians. But they did have lungs and bones in their limbs. So they were walking on land for food part of the time.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human theist says first I was a monkey or an ape.

Infers a machine theists theme in our bio heavens about bio life human. Says I can remove by theory time shift as human biology by maths DNA genesis calculus as one species with God....a human.

Then that human theist said I would survive my machine reaction as I was an ape or monkey first.

But no human would be living.

Is why once scientific theists were put in gaol.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you tell me why humans do not have hair all over their bodies and face like gorillas and bonobos do? Without guessing? Missing chromosomes? Where are the intermediaries? Hair? No hair? They disappeared perhaps?

Humans do have hair all over their bodies. Just a lot less of it than the other great apes do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans do have hair all over their bodies. Just a lot less of it than the other great apes do.

Surprisingly we have roughly the same number of follicles. Our hair is just much finer and shorter. That may be why hairy people atavisms are not that rare.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Surprisingly we have roughly the same number of follicles. Our hair is just much finer and shorter. That may be why hairy people atavisms are not that rare.

I was just thinking that I should edit my post to say that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just thinking that I should edit my post to say that.

And it seems to be rather common knowledge. I got all sorts of popular sites when I first Google searched that for a source to support what I already knew.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And it seems to be rather common knowledge. I got all sorts of popular sites when I first Google searched that for a source to support what I already knew.

Right. I mean, as I'm sitting here reading these posts and I'm thinking how can someone claim that humans don't have body hair????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. I mean, as I'm sitting here reading these posts and I'm thinking how can someone claim that humans don't have body hair????

They shave a lot? Severe alopecia? (wow! I spelled that correctly on the first attempt!)

 

[Luchito Prays]

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?

When an individual has a junction of chromosomes, or a deformity in chromosomes, lots of consequences have been observed.

The most common consequence when this abnormality happens in certain chromosomes, is that the individual is born with ape alike characteristics, like simian crease in the hands, very low intelligence, life no longer than 40 years, etc.

On the other hand, when similar cases are found in monkeys and apes in general, these do not acquire human alike characteristics but suffer of other conditions.

The early conclusion of mine, is that monkeys are descendants of man. This is to say, the monkey is a degenerate outcome of man.

Genetics rule.

The theory of evolution has been debunked one more time. (I hate myself having so much fun debunking such a silly theory)

 

[Subduction Zone]

When an individual has a junction of chromosomes, or a deformity in chromosomes, lots of consequences have been observed.

The most common consequence when this abnormality happens in certain chromosomes, is that the individual is born with ape alike characteristics, like simian crease in the hands, very low intelligence, life no longer than 40 years, etc.

On the other hand, when similar cases are found in monkeys and apes in general, these do not acquire human alike characteristics but suffer of other conditions.

The early conclusion of mine, is that monkeys are descendants of man. This is to say, the monkey is a degenerate outcome of man.

Genetics rule.

The theory of evolution has been debunked one more time. (I hate myself having so much fun debunking such a silly theory)

You can't refute that which you do not understand.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When an individual has a junction of chromosomes, or a deformity in chromosomes, lots of consequences have been observed.

The most common consequence when this abnormality happens in certain chromosomes, is that the individual is born with ape alike characteristics, like simian crease in the hands, very low intelligence, life no longer than 40 years, etc.

On the other hand, when similar cases are found in monkeys and apes in general, these do not acquire human alike characteristics but suffer of other conditions.

The early conclusion of mine, is that monkeys are descendants of man. This is to say, the monkey is a degenerate outcome of man.

Genetics rule.

The theory of evolution has been debunked one more time. (I hate myself having so much fun debunking such a silly theory)

Do you think you just "debunked" the theory of evolution?
That's funny. Somebody call the Nobel Committee!

 

[Viker]

Do you think you just "debunked" the theory of evolution?
That's funny. Somebody call the Nobel Committee!

Dy-no-mite!