I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Watchmen]

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?

I have one answer for your two questions: You don’t understand basic evolution.

 

[Watchmen]

No matter how many times same question asked, again and again, there is no proof, no experimentation that proves anything like evolution, survival of the fittest by natural selection kind, such as rodents becoming humans, eventually. Nothing. Nowhere.

And yet there is. Methinks the problem is you reject the evidence by claiming it’s not evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet there is. Methinks the problem is you reject the evidence by claiming it’s not evidence.

Well.... people like @YoursTrue are literally religiously required to do so, after all.

This is the problem. The rejection of evolution by creationists doesn't actually have anything to do with the theory itself, the evidence for it, ... not even with evidence for their own alternative beliefs (there is no such evidence).

It is all 100% the result of a dogmatic requirement of their religious beliefs.
In their minds, they have to choose between the science of biology or their religion.
The only real problem they have with evolution, is that it is incompatible with their religion.

That's it.

 

[Watchmen]

Well.... people like @YoursTrue are literally religiously required to do so, after all.

This is the problem. The rejection of evolution by creationists doesn't actually have anything to do with the theory itself, the evidence for it, ... not even with evidence for their own alternative beliefs (there is no such evidence).

It is all 100% the result of a dogmatic requirement of their religious beliefs.
In their minds, they have to choose between the science of biology or their religion.
The only real problem they have with evolution, is that it is incompatible with their religion.

That's it.

I don’t think religious thought and evolution are mutually exclusive.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

This is a good question. Why does evolution seem to make something like a human from an ape, but never repeats it, even with all types of apes still around? One would think this path should occur periodically, based on casino math, but it doesn't.

One possible explanation is maybe there was a unique environment, defining local natural selection, at one time, designed to selectively select the humanoid ape from the ape-ape. After this unique selection was made, the door to that unique environment closed and no more selections could be made in the future.

My theory for the unique set of environmental potentials for the ape to human transition, was connected to some apes allying with dogs. An alliance between two apex animals; dogs and apes, would allow the apes to learn things that was not in their DNA, that would be key to future selection.

Civilization did the same basic thing, in that it created a new set of unnatural environmental parameters, through which further human selection would need to occur. This led to a split in the pre-humans, with one group become the modern humans. They other branch stays wild and natural, until exterminated by modern man; Cain kills Abel.

Dogs, for example, work in packs and have a chain of command. This is not natural for apes. If some of the apes learned this behavior from the dogs, they could excel in hunting, even though this was not in their ape DNA. A squad of soldiers is more like a pack of dogs than a group of apes.

In the ape world, the group is lorded over by a large dominate male. In the dog world, males or females can be the pack leaders. it is not always the males. This is not natural for apes, but is common to humans.

Here is a scenario. Some apes, at the cross roads of change; window opens, come across a litter of wild dog puppies, which are cute and helpless. Apes can be nurturing, so they help the puppies and develop a connection. As the dogs mature, some are too wild and aggressive and run off. Others are gentler and remain with their ape hosts. Since dogs were not natural friends of apes, this unique loving ape-dog relationship was taboo among all the other apes. This small group is driven away with their wild dog allies; ugly human ducklings.

In their forced wanderings, in new lands where they had little genetic training, the apes learn survival skills from the dogs, since dogs were very resourceful and successful hunters and scavengers. This increase the protein in the ape diet and their brains get a boost.

Dogs were not domesticated until about 10,000 years ago, so the dogs who first allied with the apes were more natural; wild dog standard, and may even have led the ape-humans, as weaker pack mates. The human had to learn new skills before they would someday lead. Following the dogs into the grass lands caused the human to stand taller.

Dogs sleep in burrows; the future of the cave man. I remember camping and my dog; Proton, was with us. As I tended the fire, he took a stick from the firewood pile and chewed it to a point; spear. The ape-humans would copy this dog behavior between two stones; dog teeth. This camping observation was how this idea was born.

The Bible has the first modern humans not evolving by DNA and reproduction, but based on events outside them. They learn the new things, not in their DNA, which alters their nature; good and evil,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t think religious thought and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Not across the board, obviously.
But it is to creationists.

Evolution is mutually exclusive with religious beliefs that state species were created as-is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Never heard a Creationist say that.
The first time I ever heard it was in this thread... from Atheists.

I assume that you are not referring to posts 57 and 58, and post 59 has been deleted.

So, out of curiosity, say what?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Never heard a Creationist say that.
The first time I ever heard it was in this thread... from Atheists.

You should get out more. It is an oldie, but still comes up all the time.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet there is. Methinks the problem is you reject the evidence by claiming it’s not evidence.

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

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a good question. Why does evolution seem to make something like a human from an ape, but never repeats it, even with all types of apes still around? One would think this path should occur periodically, based on casino math, but it doesn't.


Dogs sleep in burrows; the future of the cave man. I remember camping and my dog; Proton, was with us. As I tended the fire, he took a stick from the firewood pile and chewed it to a point; spear. The ape-humans would copy this dog behavior between two stones; dog teeth. This camping observation was how this idea was born.

DNA does not prove evolution. In fact, now that you speak of apes and actions of dogs, this does not prove or evidence that living forms came about by evolution. DNA is fascinating but does not prove the supposition (claim) that animals and plants came about by natural selection, in other words, evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You don't think that people start out as a single cell and over time become multi-cellular and larger? Do you think you stepped from your mother's womb the size you are now?

I think that statement about what science claims and demonstrates not mattering to you says it all. No evidence would make any difference since you are not basing your views of science on evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

DNA does not prove evolution. In fact, now that you speak of apes and actions of dogs, this does not prove or evidence that living forms came about by evolution. DNA is fascinating but does not prove the supposition (claim) that animals and plants came about by natural selection, in other words, evolution.

I am trying to understand your position on this. You are essentially claiming DNA does nothing, so what is it that you find fascinating about a chemical you cannot see and that you think does nothing?

 

[nPeace]

//facepalm

Did you actually read that article?
It's not talking about determining common ancestry.
It literally has NOTHING to do with the point I raised.



This one is dealing with populations that aren't genetically isolated from one another and then trying to find out if you are a direct descended of one particular specific bloodline that goes back a few thousand years, which again has nothing to do with the point raised.



No need to pretend, it has nothing to do with the point.



Well, it can. This is why one does a DNA test to see if one is or is not the father of a certain child.



Plenty.
Like how we share thousands of ERV's with chimps.
A little less with gorilla's.
Less still with oerang oetangs.
Less still with lions.
The closer related, the more shared ERV's. The further related, the less shared ERV's.

And that's just one type of marker.

Then there's stuff like human chromosome 2, which is a fused one. And when split at the fusion site, we find chromosome 13 that the chimp has and which we are "missing". Off course, it isn't missing: it's fused with chromosome 2.

And on and on.



So what you are saying is that DNA analysis is hard and that there are factors to take in mind which can create difficulties - and that molecular biologists are aware of what these factors are and how they can be recognized.

You're not telling me anything I didn't already know.
But you don't seem aware that what you are quoting, is actually validating my point and not yours.

It's the same as with geology.
It would be neat if we could just go anywhere in the world, dig down and literally "dig through history".
But it's not that simple. Plenty of tectonic and other geological activity can mess with these structures.
And geologists know about those also and are able to recognize them, meaning that they know when a structure is reliable for such study and when it isn't and account for it.

Hilariously, young earth creationists tend to point to such difficulties as well and like to pretend, just like you do here, that therefor it is all unreliable from start to finish.

The epitome of intellectual dishonesty, in other words.




I'm skipping the rest, because it's the same nonsense over and over.
You projecting your ignorance coupled with your dogmatic beliefs that literally require you to not accept the science of evolution and trying to raise objections that aren't valid at all by engaging in strawmen, misunderstanding, etc.


So yeah..... nothing new under the sun. Same old, same old.

I have no need of your hypotheses.

The point is, Tag, you have to make inferences.
You're forced to do the very thing you accuse religion of.
Let me try that.
What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For God's invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

There you go. Straight out of Romans 1:19, 20.
Creation speaks.

 

[nPeace]

What do you make of the genetic and anatomical similarities between humans and the other great apes? What do you make of the fact that dinosaurs and birds are the only animals that possess feathers? What do you make of the fact that marsupial mammals are restricted to Australia and South America and the fact that the australopithecines lived only in Africa, the same continent as chimpanzees, gorillas and early members of the genus Homo? Are these facts not evidence of evolution?

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.

 

[nPeace]

I assume that you are not referring to posts 57 and 58, and post 59 has been deleted.

So, out of curiosity, say what?

See this post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point is, Tag, you have to make inferences.
You're forced to do the very thing you accuse religion of.

Such as?
Please expand.

Let me try that.
What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For God's invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

There you go. Straight out of Romans 1:19, 20.
Creation speaks.

Words in books aren't objective evidence like DNA molecules graphing out into nested hierarchies.

 

[KWED]

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?

You are invoking Poe's Law and I claim my £5.

 

[nPeace]

Such as?
Please expand.

Wait. You don't have to make inferences!!!
Show me that you don't, and we can take it from there.

Words in books aren't objective evidence like DNA molecules graphing out into nested hierarchies.

Words out your mouth, or writen on a forum aren't objective evidence... like what!!? Ha Ha. DNA molecules graphing out into nested hierarchies. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
DNA molecules graphing out into nested hierarchies

Did you mean to say DNA molecules graphed out into nested hierarchies?

DNA sequencing is the process of trying to work out what order these modules appear in the chain.

Since these chains are very long it is necessary to split the chain up into smaller fragments. We can then sequence the fragments and put them back together. This becomes a problem when we don’t know what order the fragments come in. Luckily, we can apply graph theory to solve this.

How is this any different to what I said earlier... which you dismissed, with a pretense that it has nothing to do with your claims.
All you have done, is lead right back to your hypothesis, and my point.
Phylogenetic tree
Limitations
Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses ... the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
...great care is needed in inferring phylogenetic relationships among species. This is most true of genetic material that is subject to lateral gene transfer and recombination, where different haplotype blocks can have different histories.

To make things worst, you just keep pointing out how many problems your ideas have... They are holey . Not to mention the so-called junk DNA which represents 98.8 percent of "Dark matter".
That's all you have Tag... ideas., and circular reasoning.

All life diverged from one common ancestor.
Create a model to represent the evolution of traits.
Build a tree of the evolution of organisms based on the idea of studying traits (using comparative methods) that evolved.
All life diverged from one common ancestor.
Therefore there would be similarities in structure.
There are similarities in structure
Therefore...
All life diverged from one common ancestor.​

So your claims are more religious than the most religious.

 

[gnostic]

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.

So not only you don’t understand Evolution, you don’t understand biology, like human reproduction, do you?

I think it might be easier to just focus on human biology, and human reproduction, rather than write a book on other reproduction of other animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea.

Have you ever study biology at all?

If you have, then need to brush up what a gamete is.

A gamete is a single cell, and it in a man, these gametes are sperms. Each individual sperm is a single cell, and these sperms are produced in a man’s semen.

In a woman, the gamete is the egg (unfertilized egg), also known as ovum. This ovum, egg or gamete, like the sperm, is a single cell.

Fertilisation occurred when the sperm and egg (two gametes) fused together as as a new called a zygote. Again, zygote is a single cell, but it is eukaryotic cell.

Eukaryotic cells exist in all eukaryotes (animals, including humans, plants and fungi are all eukaryotes, multicellular organisms that have eukaryotic cells), not prokaryotic cells (these prokaryotic cells only exist in prokaryotes, organisms like bacteria and archaea). But getting back to human reproduction.

How do think all the other cells are produced, YoursTrue? I am talking about cells that make up every tissues, every organs, every bones, hair, and body fluids that contain your cells (referring to red and white blood cells), cells that make up your head, torso, limbs, etc.

These new cells go through process of multiplying and replication, when the zygote split into 2, then split again and again, before the human embryo form. More cells are produced over time, until the embryo formed in the woman’s womb.

You should know the rest of the story.

But the points are baby started out as two different gametes, sperm and egg (more precisely, an ovum) as two single cells, that fused into another single cell - a zygote - before multiple cells are produced to later form the embryo.

So for you to say a single cell “expand” and “grow in size”, is wrong. In eukaryotic organisms, like human, cells tends to multiply, by splitting. A human is a single cell, but they do started out as two single cells.

You really need to go back to basic, and learn a lot more than you think know, because if you went back to high school biology, you would fail today in the exam with questions on human reproduction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Words out your mouth, or writen on a forum aren't objective evidence...

Indeed. No words anywhere are.
DNA molecules are, however. They aren't dependent on someone's opinion.
They are what they are.

like what!!? Ha Ha. DNA molecules graphing out into nested hierarchies. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
DNA molecules graphing out into nested hierarchies

Did you mean to say DNA molecules graphed out into nested hierarchies?

It's the pattern they are in. They aren't put in such pattern by humans.
Humans didn't impose said pattern unto the collective of genomes.
Humans discovered said pattern in the collective of genomes.

DNA sequencing is the process of trying to work out what order these modules appear in the chain.

Since these chains are very long it is necessary to split the chain up into smaller fragments. We can then sequence the fragments and put them back together. This becomes a problem when we don’t know what order the fragments come in. Luckily, we can apply graph theory to solve this.

How is this any different to what I said earlier... which you dismissed, with a pretense that it has nothing to do with your claims.
All you have done, is lead right back to your hypothesis, and my point.
Phylogenetic tree
Limitations
Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses ... the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
...great care is needed in inferring phylogenetic relationships among species. This is most true of genetic material that is subject to lateral gene transfer and recombination, where different haplotype blocks can have different histories.

Nobody ever claimed that unravelling DNA is easy.
All you are doing is showing that geneticists are aware of the difficulties and the processes that can interfere with analyzing DNA. Just like how geologists are aware of processes that can mess with a geologic site.

To make things worst, you just keep pointing out how many problems your ideas have... They are holey . Not to mention the so-called junk DNA which represents 98.8 percent of "Dark matter".
That's all you have Tag... ideas., and circular reasoning.

All life diverged from one common ancestor.
Create a model to represent the evolution of traits.
Build a tree of the evolution of organisms based on the idea of studying traits (using comparative methods) that evolved.
All life diverged from one common ancestor.
Therefore there would be similarities in structure.
There are similarities in structure
Therefore...
All life diverged from one common ancestor.​

So your claims are more religious than the most religious.

Trees are drawn independently, based on the results of the comparative studies - not on some a priori idea of what they expect it to look like.

See when in a scientific paper you put bonobo's on the same branch as chimps, you are required to provide a reason for why you do that. And saying "because evolution says they are closely related" is not a valid reason. But for example saying that they share the most ERV's with each other then with any other species, is a valid reason. That is what one would objectively expect. If bonobo's would share more ERV's with lions then with chimps, that would be a serious problem. Evolution wouldn't be able to explain that. It would also break the phylogenetic nested structure in a way that couldn't be explained with things like horizontal gene transfer etc.


But why bother explaining any of this, right?
It's not like you are going to make an actual effort to understand.