Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[USincognito]

There is no proof at all that humans evolved from apes. None.

You're half-way correct. There is no proof, but that's because science doesn't prove things and there's no such thing as scientific proof. Proof is only found in math. Science deals with evidence and there is a large body of evidence showing that humans and our fellow apes share common ancestry.

 

[Estrid]

I am not a nasty person. I just believe strongly that humans didnt evolve from apes. What others believe is up to them. There is no proof at all that humans evolved from apes. None.

Didn't say you are. I waxreferring in part to
others here who've been getting insulting.
And in part to you for your uncalled for and
and insulting personal remark.


As for belief. There's no proof humans did
not co evolve along with other apes.

There is a huge body of data indicating they did.
Any evidence for your beliefs?


But ever mind that.

I was concerned with the dishonesty of stating
opinion as fact.

Those who are not concerned, keep doing it might wish to reconsider.

 

[Estrid]

You're half-way correct. There is no proof, but that's because science doesn't prove things and there's no such thing as scientific proof. Proof is only found in math. Science deals with evidence and there is a large body of evidence showing that humans and our fellow apes share common ancestry.

Disproof would be easy-peeze if ToE were false.

So why, we ask hasn't anyone done it?

 

[USincognito]

Just because humans share DNA with apes doesn’t necessarily mean that they are descendants of apes because all plants & animals share DNA between each other.

It literally means that, but it's more than the mere presence of DNA. It's genetic similarity, shared endogenized retroviruses, shared pseudogenes, etc.

Humans share DNA with plants, animals, reptiles, birds, insects, and even plants, that doesn’t suggest they are all descendants of each other.

Actually it means all life on earth shared common ancestry. Animals and fungi are both in a clade called Opisthokonta.

The Protistan Origins of Animals and Fungi

Abstract. Recent molecular studies suggest that Opisthokonta, the eukaryotic supergroup including animals and fungi, should be expanded to include a divers

academic.oup.com

The theory of evolution is not a fact it’s a hypothesis because there’s not a shred of conclusive evidence to support it. It’s all based on assumptions. It’s nothing more than scientists’ best guess.

This sort of ignorant bluster is hilarious to read. Theories aren't hunches or guesses. They're powerful explanatory tools, The theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories we have.

Even scientists don’t actually state that evolution is a fact, it’s only the uneducated people that make this claim. Evolution is merely speculation based on the tiny bit of information we have.

Evolution is a fact. We know that it happened from the massive amount of evidence we've derived from the fossil record, genetics, biogeography, etc. Every month dozens, literally dozens, of papers are published in scientific journals detailing evidence for evolution. Your ignorance of that evidence doesn't make it go away.

But there are huge gaps in that information. Like all those pictures you see transitioning from ape to man, it’s all fake, it’s derived from speculation not from actual information we have obtained. There is no fossil record indicating a transition from ape to man, those pictures were drawn to give an example of what scientists predict might’ve taken place. Not what they know that took place. Just like the pictures of Lucy, they don’t know what Lucy actually looked like because it’s nothing more than a handful of bones they found, yet we have these detailed pictures scientists have rendered from their own imaginations. They don’t even have a skull for crying out loud yet we have these detailed pictures of what it supposedly looked like.

{snip images}

Specimen AL-288-1, aka Lucy, is a 40% complete Australopithecus afarensis. Because of bilateral symmetry, she's actually about 75% complete. She's one of the most well known Au. afarensis specimens, but she's by no means the only one. There are about 300 different specimens.

As you can see here scientists have managed to create this image based on mere fragments of a few bones. They don’t know the shape of its skull yet we have these detailed pictures that are based on their predictions of what they think it might’ve looked like.

"Mere fragments" and "a few bones" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. As I noted, she's basically 75% complete and there are several other Australopithecine skull specimens. Mrs. Ples is an Au. africanus specimen with nearly all of the skull but the mandible.

Scientists never said evolution is a fact, they say it’s a possibility, yet so many people skim over the important pieces of information because they want to troll Christian websites pretending they’re so “educated” and superior because they have nothing better to do with their life. If you don’t believe in God that’s fine, but why go thru all the trouble to seek out Christian websites and make a bunch of claims that you know nothing about? Do you go to children’s websites and start telling them that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy don’t exist either? Is your life so miserable and pathetic that you have nothing better to do than cause grief to others?

This emotional rant ignores the fact that evolution, including human evolution, is accepted by religious people of all sects and creeds including Christians participating in this thread.

 

[dlamberth]

Is your life so miserable and pathetic that you have nothing better to do than cause grief to others?

If your feeling that much grief from the conversations here, I'm thinking that this may not be the right place for you to be at.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why, we ask hasn't anyone done it?

Because of microevolution.

They think because microevolution exists, they just assume macroevolution is microevolution on steroids.

Another reason is their willingness to overlook missing links, and just gloss over them to make it look like everything's connected.

I could go on about their willingness to throw deep time into the pot, move decimal places around as needed, and other things.

But I won't.

 

[AV1611VET]

This emotional rant ignores the fact that evolution, including human evolution, is accepted by religious people of all sects and creeds including Christians participating in this thread.

I believe in human evolution too.

To a point.

I evolved from my parents, who evolved from their parents ... all the way back to Adam & Eve.

 

[Lost4words]

Didn't say you are. I waxreferring in part to
others here who've been getting insulting.
And in part to you for your uncalled for and
and insulting personal remark.


As for belief. There's no proof humans did
not co evolve along with other apes.

There is a huge body of data indicating they did.
Any evidence for your beliefs?


But ever mind that.

I was concerned with the dishonesty of stating
opinion as fact.

Those who are not concerned, keep doing it might wish to reconsider.

Insulting remark?

Where?

 

[trophy33]

The only way human beings are significantly different from other animals is in the area of consciousness.

We are significantly and insurmountably different from all other earthly creation in plenty of areas, its clearly visible on the first sight.

Regarding consciousness, its hard to verify, because one can know only his own consciousness. But if you are proposing that its the causal part for our other differences which are just effects of our higher consciousness, you may be right.

However, not completely, because also our specific body is needed, like two hands, specific mouth for forming words (and complex language thinking) and two eyes in the front of our head to have a stereo vision.
Putting our level of consciousness into a cat or into an elephant will not enable them to write books, to have a conversation or to pray. Their bodily limitations would remain.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We are significantly and insurmountably different from all other earthly creation in plenty of areas, its clearly visible on the first sight.

Notably, sweaters. Only humans (and some unfortunate dogs) wear sweaters.

Regarding consciousness, its hard to verify, because one can know only his own consciousness. But if you are proposing that its the causal part for our other differences which are just effects of our higher consciousness, you may be right.

So you want me to think chimps and cats aren't conscious, but you can't demonstrate that you are conscious? How do I tell the difference?

However, not completely, because also our specific body is needed, like two hands, specific mouth for forming words (and complex language thinking) and two eyes in the front of our head to have a stereo vision.
Putting our level of consciousness into a cat or into an elephant will not enable them to write books, to have a conversation or to pray. Their bodily limitations would remain.

Elephants mourn their dead. I don't know if they pray. (I don't. Does that make *me* not conscious?)

 

[dlamberth]

We are significantly and insurmountably different from all other earthly creation in plenty of areas, its clearly visible on the first sight.

Your describing outer forms which has evolved into very different ways. Diversity is abundant in this creation. But we're all made from the same stuff.

Regarding consciousness, its hard to verify, because one can know only his own consciousness. But if you are proposing that its the causal part for our other differences which are just effects of our higher consciousness, you may be right.

That level of consciousness is what sets us apart from the other animals.

However, not completely, because also our specific body is needed, like two hands, specific mouth for forming words (and complex language thinking) and two eyes in the front of our head to have a stereo vision.
Putting our level of consciousness into a cat or into an elephant will not enable them to write books, to have a conversation or to pray. Their bodily limitations would remain.

All true. Your pointing to the particular consciousness that evolved in the Human form.

 

[Astrophile]

You're half-way correct. There is no proof, but that's because science doesn't prove things and there's no such thing as scientific proof. Proof is only found in math. Science deals with evidence and there is a large body of evidence showing that humans and our fellow apes share common ancestry.

I agree with what you say. What I want to know is whether creationists know about the evidence and how they interpret it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Science and evolution

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Evolution is both a fact and a theory."

Teaching of Evolution: Fact and Theory - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

"The theory of evolution is not a hypothesis, but the scientifically accepted explanation of the incontrovertible fact that life and its many forms has changed over the years. "

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."

Can you please quote exactly where evolution from apes is mentioned as being fact in these articles? I would love to see these quotes because they’re not in these articles. The evolution that is mentioned in these articles is merely changes in life forms, not evolution from apes or any other species. What you’re doing here is taking statements out of context and pretending that they they support your position in an attempt to save face and avoid the embarrassment of having to admit you are wrong. It’s a dishonest deceptive tactic that everyone who actually read these articles is able to see thru, so I appreciate your response here it has been very beneficial to my position in this discussion by allowing you to discredit yourself as being incapable of rational and honest discernment.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Missing link is an outdated 19th Century term that means a being literally half-way between humans and our fellow apes. This is the 21st Century and we now have thousands of transitional hominid specimens from dozens of species. More importantly DNA has made the fossil record a nice addition to our knowledge base rather than the focus.

Wow, cool story bro although if I were going to make such a statement I would’ve backed it up with conclusive evidence to support it, but that’s ok I understand how difficult that would be since such evidence doesn’t actually exist.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not sure why you think any of this supports your position. The entry correctly states that we don't know and will probably never identify one single species from which humans and chimpanzees evolved.

Which means the humans evolving from apes can’t possibly be considered a fact.

It also correctly states that we have fossil evidence of many hominid species which form a family bush of direct and collateral ancestors.

THEORETICALLY, that’s what the article says which is precisely why I highlighted that specific word in BOLD LETTERS in my quote of that article, to emphasize that very important piece of information because I had already anticipated that you would omit that very important piece of information.

 

[Estrid]

I agree with what you say. What I want to know is whether creationists know about the evidence and how they interpret it.

In general:

Its extremely rare for a yec to have any
education in the relevant fields, esp
geology / biology.
What little they have heard is mostly from
such as AiG.

As for interpretation of evidence-
Only one interpretation is possible.
Simply invoke bible, and SETI.* (the
grim spectre thereof)
Oysters on mountain? Flood.
No oysters on mountain? Flood.

* Same Evidence Different Interpretation.

 

[dlamberth]

Which means the humans evolving from apes can’t possibly be considered a fact.

The evidence absolutely does point towards the fact that we share a common ancestor with the rest of ape family.

 

[Bradskii]

THEORETICALLY, that’s what the article says which is precisely why I highlighted that specific word...

Yeah, it's an explanation of how we got here, which links all the available evidence into one theory. It's the best one that we have right now. Maybe you have a better one. In which case...let's hear about it.

 

[USincognito]

Wow, cool story bro although if I were going to make such a statement I would’ve backed it up with conclusive evidence to support it, but that’s ok I understand how difficult that would be since such evidence doesn’t actually exist.

Let's put your "no evidence" assertion to the test. I'm going to leave aside genetic evidence because I don't think we're ready for that and just focus on fossils.

This image shows photographs of Hominid transitional fossils arranged in chronological order. The upper right is a chimpanzee for reference. The lower right is an anatomically modern human.

Please tell me where you draw the line between ape and human and why you draw it there.

 

[Estrid]

Which means the humans evolving from apes can’t possibly be considered a fact.

THEORETICALLY, that’s what the article says whiych is precisely why I highlighted that specific word in BOLD LETTERS in my quote of that article, to emphasize that very important piece of information because I had already anticipated that you would omit that very important piece of information.

A legal theory of your guilt might submit in evidence
the videotape of you robbing the bank, tellers' testimony,
License number of your getaway car, dye- pack all over
you, clothes and car, etc.

Every item of evidence can be cross checked,
all of it is found to be consistent and indicative of
your guilt.
Proof, as you'd agree, beyond REASONABLE doubt.

"Ha', your attorney says, that's just a THEORY!".


Asked for his theory of your innocence, he has to admit that he has no theory at all. Not one fact to support your innocen e.

Which is where you are in this discussion.

Because a theory is an explanation of facts.

You've no facts at all, still less an explanation for why
evolution is false, or why you haven't fact one to offer.

Which is proof beyond reasonable doubt that you
don't know what you are talking about.