I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Valjean]

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

Unless religion trespasses on the magisterium of science and begins making alternative claims of fact.
Religion and science are two different things.

 

[Valjean]

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.

See post 363.
Nature made humans and other apes, and we continue to evolve. Don't expect evolution to be quick enough to be observable in human, historical time.
Evolution is not hierarchical. It's not progressive. Humans are not more "highly evolved" than chimps.

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.

Yes, natural selection works by 'selecting' traits that best fit the current environment, but environments aren't designed to produce a specific creature, nor is there any "door" that closed. There's nothing preventing further evolution.

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.

There are many factors in human, or any other, evolution. Savannas developed, accessable to apes. The utility of upright bipedalism was selected for. Intelligence -- and dogs -- came later.

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.

Civilization didn't develop till long, long after the development of anatomically modern humans. At the time of the development of civilization only modern humans existed, so no split.

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.

Dogs (wolves) don't have a "chain of command." They have evolved, neural algorithms for hunting. Many species hunt, with many different strategies. Humans were hunters long before they began interacting with wolves.

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.

"Leadership" in the modern sense, was not learned from dogs. It was an artifact of the increasingly specialized, hierarchical culture that arose from permanent settlements, specialization, agriculture, stored surpluses, and increasing population.

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.

But fully modern humans existed long before ten thousand years ago, and long before we had any interaction with dogs. And hominids have been fully bipedal for millions of years.

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.

Dogs don't make spears, or intentionally gnaw sticks to a point. Bladed tools and spears were in use long before we had dogs.

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,

The Bible doesn't have humans evolving at all. We evolved through natural selection and other selective mechanisms, not from learning.

 

[nPeace]

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



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.



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.




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.

Feel free to keep making your desired assertions.
I'm glad scientists who are not like you are honest enough to explain that they have hypotheses for the UCA and the phylogenetic relationships among species.
... and I understand very well what an idea, or hypothesis is. It's not rocket science.
I also understand why Atheists are bent on making claims that are not in harmony with science. What's disappointing is that some of these Atheists are scientists, and are willing to stoop to that level of disingenuousness.

 

[nPeace]

See post 363.
Nature made humans and other apes, and we continue to evolve. Don't expect evolution to be quick enough to be observable in human, historical time.

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!

 

[viole]

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!

We see it at every human birth. For humans are apes. Great apes, to be exact.

ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

Please explain if you will, why you say that I claim DNA does nothing. Stick to that as for your understanding of what I am saying. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

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!

It truly is. The obvious eludes some.

 

[metis]

If we are supposedly designed by an "intelligent creator", then why are there so many miscarriages and birth defects?

IMO, I do believe in God, but I don't believe God designed everything. Instead, I tend to think God took a more naturalistic approach such as that proposed by Spinoza and Einstein.

 

[nPeace]

We see it at every human birth. For humans are apes. Great apes, to be exact.

ciao

- viole

Yeah? Someone just said you can't. So what birthed the first ape, and what year did you see it happen? How old are you again?

 

[nPeace]

If we are supposedly designed by an "intelligent creator", then why are there so many miscarriages and birth defects?

IMO, I do believe in God, but I don't believe God designed everything. Instead, I tend to think God took a more naturalistic approach such as that proposed by Spinoza and Einstein.

Maybe read your Bible. Do you believe that?

 

[Watchmen]

Unless religion trespasses on the magisterium of science and begins making alternative claims of fact.
Religion and science are two different things.

Of course they’re different.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Hmmm. ...and you expect to see God creating, even though we know that designed objects require an intelligent designer.

We also know natural processes can give rise to complex structures, thus designed without evidence of a creating intelligence.

Why couldn't the natural processes of the Universe be the designer?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please explain if you will, why you say that I claim DNA does nothing. Stick to that as for your understanding of what I am saying. Thank you.

You have said as much in many of your posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It truly is. The obvious eludes some.

Speciation has been observed. And many other things that elude creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It truly is. The obvious eludes some.

Apparently, you were unaware that humans started out as single-celled organisms. Or that many organisms start out that way. Trees for instance.

 

[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!

We know nothing of the sort. You presume this.
We wouldn't expect to 'see' nature make humans and apes, but we can observe the process in action easily enough.

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.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah? Someone just said you can't. So what birthed the first ape, and what year did you see it happen? How old are you again?

What child first spoke a language different from its parents?

I don't understand how you find gradualism so perplexing. You're also being disingenuous -- you know perfectly well noöne's claiming any ape sprang de novo from a non-ape.

 

[YoursTrue]

Apparently, you were unaware that humans started out as single-celled organisms. Or that many organisms start out that way. Trees for instance.

I know what scientists who believe in the theory of evolution say, and of course, they say this as fact. On the other hand, single-celled organisms aren't so simple either. But then ... you believe what you believe, and frankly, there is a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y no proof of any sort that "humans started out as single-celled organisms."

 

[YoursTrue]

Speciation has been observed. And many other things that elude creationists.

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.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have said as much in many of your posts.

In other words, you really can't explain what you meant or think I mean. Thanks, I thought as much. I don't like to put people down, but frankly, as the saying goes, what I have found with people like you is that when put to the 'test,' you just insult. Call names, etc. I have come to expect that from -- people like you. Sad to say. But why bother explaining yourself? Because -- (you can't).