The "unified" theory of evolution

[Joseph G]

In my prior encounters with evolutionists on this forum, I and those of my creationist persuasion are often charged with misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the theory. When we point out inconsistencies - the wagons are circled and the claim made, with a straight face, that all evolutionists are united in their understanding and in presenting its doctrines.

I would like to offer just one, mind you, example of why we believe that, perhaps due to varying opinions spread over numerous threads, proponents seem to be suffering from a stunning lack of self-awareness within their own ranks.

From this post: According to the theory of evolution, how scientifically inaccurate is this Christian sweatshirt?

The same individual stated:

"Again, the TOE doesn't say humans are descended from Gorillas or Monkeys (giant or not), only that we share a common ancestor."

And also stated:

"Human beings ARE classified as Great Apes, just as we are classified as primates, as mammals, as vertebrates, etc. It makes as much since to scream "I'm not an ape" as it does to scream "I'm not a mammal."

Is there some way that these seemingly contradictory claims are somehow reconcilable with each other that I'm missing?

Is not the former saying common ancestor, and the latter saying direct descent from ape to ape?

Is there an instance when an ape... is not an ape?

 

[Bradskii]

In my prior encounters with evolutionists...

I nearly stopped reading right there.

Is there some way that these seemingly contradictory claims are somehow reconcilable with each other that I'm missing?

Is not the former saying common ancestor, and the latter saying direct descent from ape to ape?

All apes, such as humans, gorillas, chimps, bonobos etc had a common ancestor. If you want to be pedantic then there was at one time a proto ape. The first ape from which all the different varieties of apes, such as humans, gorillas etc descended.

So we're not descendents of gorillas or chimps etc. Any more than you are a descendent of your cousins. We all descended from that common ancestor. Just like you and your cousins all descended from a common ancestor.

Is there an instance when an ape... is not an ape?

No.

 

[Joseph G]

All apes, such as humans, gorillas, chimps, bonobos etc had a common ancestor. If you want to be pedantic then there was at one time a proto ape. The first ape from which all the different varieties of apes, such as humans, gorillas etc descended.

So we're not descendents of gorillas or chimps etc. Any more than you are a descendent of your cousins. We all descended from that common ancestor. Just like you and your cousins all descended from a common ancestor.

I would love for you to post a pic of that common ancestor - or any link between her and humans, gorillas, chimps, bononos. Where's the beef?

But laying that aside, you are missing the question. Are the two statements contradictory?

You seem to have repeated the phenomenon.

To wit:

"The first ape from which all the different varieties of apes, such as humans, gorillas etc descended."

vs.

"So we're not descendents of gorillas or chimps etc."

The only way I can see that the two can be reconciled is that the proto ape was not an ape and yet was. If it was somehow different from its decendent ape - why do they both go by the name of, sigh, ape?

And while I'm asking, did humans and gorillas and chimps and bononos all branch off of the proto ape simultaneously? Or did the gorillas first branch off to humans and chimps (and yet continue their line of gorrilla-dom) while the bononos branched off to the what - fruit flies and salamanders?

You know, when I was a kid I had an imaginary friend named Rusty Morales. I bet HE could pony up the pics and documentation to back up this trip to la-la land!

Really now, Brad, you can't see the silly extremes your theory would have to support to retain some semblance of logic?

 

[BCP1928]

I would love for you to post a pic of that common ancestor - or any link between her and humans, gorillas, chimps, bononos. Where's the beef?

But laying that aside, you are missing the question. Are the two statements contradictory?

You seem to have repeated the phenomenon.

To wit:

"The first ape from which all the different varieties of apes, such as humans, gorillas etc descended."

vs.

"So we're not descendents of gorillas or chimps etc."

The only way I can see that the two can be reconciled is that the proto ape was not an ape and yet was. If it was somehow different from its decendent ape - why do they both go by the name of, sigh, ape?

And while I'm asking, did humans and gorillas and chimps and bononos all branch off of the proto ape simultaneously? Or did the gorillas first branch off to humans and chimps (and yet continue their line of gorrilla-dom) while the bononos branched off to the what - fruit flies and salamanders?

You know, when I was a kid I had an imaginary friend named Rusty Morales. I bet HE could pony up the pics and documentation to back up this trip to la-la land!

Really now, Brad, you can't see the silly extremes your theory would have to support to retain some semblance of logic?

You could actually read about it if you wanted, or even just Google a chart.

 

[linux.poet]

Really now, Brad, you can't see the silly extremes your theory would have to support to retain some semblance of logic?

Time to break out the syllogisms.

Premise 1: Human beings and apes share a common ancestor.
Premise 2: All beings descended from the common ancestor of human beings and apes are apes.
Conclusion: Human beings are apes.

It's not illogical, it's just based on wrong premises. I declare premises 1 and 2 to be incorrect, and throw the conclusion out.

Premise 1: Human beings are uniquely created by God, and bear the image of God.
Premise 2: Human beings and apes do not share a common ancestor.
Conclusion: Human beings are not apes.

The difference is not logic, the difference is Truth.

Also, my thread was meant for entertainment, and not really to be taken seriously, but here we are.

 

[Joseph G]

You could actually read about it if you wanted, or even just Google a chart.

Would it be any less a work of fantasy?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would love for you to post a pic of that common ancestor - or any link between her and humans, gorillas, chimps, bononos. Where's the beef?

Proconsul (mammal) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But laying that aside, you are missing the question. Are the two statements contradictory?

You seem to have repeated the phenomenon.

To wit:

"The first ape from which all the different varieties of apes, such as humans, gorillas etc descended."

vs.

"So we're not descendents of gorillas or chimps etc."

Humans are not descended from gorillas and chimps for the same reason you are descended from your cousins. You and your cousins share grandparents (or an earlier ancestor), just like humans, gorillas and chimps *SHARE* an ancestor.

The only way I can see that the two can be reconciled is that the proto ape was not an ape and yet was. If it was somehow different from its decendent ape - why do they both go by the name of, sigh, ape?

And while I'm asking, did humans and gorillas and chimps and bononos all branch off of the proto ape simultaneously? Or did the gorillas first branch off to humans and chimps (and yet continue their line of gorrilla-dom) while the bononos branched off to the what - fruit flies and salamanders?

You know, when I was a kid I had an imaginary friend named Rusty Morales. I bet HE could pony up the pics and documentation to back up this trip to la-la land!

Really now, Brad, you can't see the silly extremes your theory would have to support to retain some semblance of logic?

This is basic HS biology.

 

[Joseph G]

Time to break out the syllogisms.

Premise 1: Human beings and apes share a common ancestor.
Premise 2: All beings descended from the common ancestor of human beings and apes are apes.
Conclusion: Human beings are apes.

It's not illogical, it's just based on wrong premises. I declare premises 1 and 2 to be incorrect, and throw the conclusion out.

Premise 1: Human beings are uniquely created by God, and bear the image of God.
Premise 2: Human beings and apes do not share a common ancestor.
Conclusion: Human beings are not apes.

The difference is not logic, the difference is Truth.

Also, my thread was meant for entertainment, and not really to be taken seriously, but here we are.

Ah gee, its serious but with a bit of good-natured ribbing.

And of course I cast my lot with Truth as well.

 

[BCP1928]

Would it be any less a work of fantasy?

Not necessarily to you, but at least you would be able to describe it correctly.

 

[Joseph G]

View attachment 365175

Proconsul (mammal) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pic is short for picture, ie: photograph. My best guess here is either ink or charcoal. A product of man's fantasy either way.

Here's my version, which I figure is just as convincing:

Humans are not descended from gorillas and chimps for the same reason you are descended from your cousins. You and your cousins share grandparents (or an earlier ancestor), just like humans, gorillas and chimps *SHARE* an ancestor.

Stop it, stop it, I wanna get off!

Again, I say, proof?

This is basic HS biology.

Which should have been curtailed in kindergarten. Did the adults leave the room or sumthin'?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pic is short for picture, ie: photograph. My best guess here is either ink or charcoal. A product of man's fantasy either way.

Do we need vocabulary lessons too? "Photo" is short for "photograph". Pictures come in many kinds, including, but not limited to photographs, but also including drawings, sketches, paintings, engravings, and then there are those fancy "moving pictures".

Here's my version, which I figure is just as convincing:

View attachment 365176

That is a monkey, not an ape.

Stop it, stop it, I wanna get off!

Again, I say, proof?

Prove how cousins work? Ask your mom. She'll tell you.

Which should have been curtailed in kindergarten. Did the adults leave the room or sumthin'?

They don't teach HS biology in kindergarten, only in HS. Though, you could have learned the basics of the ape family in Jr. High, Middle School, or even upper elementary school depending on your local district. I probably learned it when I was 8 or so.

 

[Shemjaza]

Time to break out the syllogisms.

Premise 1: Human beings and apes share a common ancestor.
Premise 2: All beings descended from the common ancestor of human beings and apes are apes.
Conclusion: Human beings are apes.

It's not illogical, it's just based on wrong premises. I declare premises 1 and 2 to be incorrect, and throw the conclusion out.

There's a second issue:

By the biological definitions and descriptions humans match all the characteristics of apes.

Physiologically and genetically humans are apes... if humans and the modern varieties of apes were specially created, they would still all be classified as apes, much as they are all classified as mammals.

Creationists usually have no trouble with the classification of "bird" and "fish" despite the differences amongst those groups being significantly larger than the differences between humans and chimps.

Premise 1: Human beings are uniquely created by God, and bear the image of God.
Premise 2: Human beings and apes do not share a common ancestor.
Conclusion: Human beings are not apes.

The difference is not logic, the difference is Truth.

Evolution is a conclusion from evidence not logic or "Truth". The issue with the religious conviction as a mechanism for finding truth is that there isn't a clear way to distinguish between competing mutually exclusive religious interpretations.

 

[Bradskii]

But laying that aside, you are missing the question. Are the two statements contradictory?

You seem to have repeated the phenomenon.


"The first ape from which all the different varieties of apes, such as humans, gorillas etc descended."

They'd be Homininae. See below.

"So we're not descendents of gorillas or chimps etc."

Correct. See below.

The only way I can see that the two can be reconciled is that the proto ape was not an ape and yet was.

It was.

If it was somehow different from its decendent ape - why do they both go by the name of, sigh, ape?

The same way a pigeon and an eagle go by the name of, sigh, bird. If you want a sequence of how it happened, this is it:

1. There were what is termed Catarrhini. Monkeys.

2. They evolved into two separate lineages: Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea. The former was a type of ape. The latter another type of monkey.

3. Hominoidea (they are all apes from now on) evolved into two separate lineages: Greater apes and Lesser apes.

4. Greater apes split into Homininae and Orangutans (they are still all apes)

5. Homininae split into Hominini and gorillas (yep, still all apes).

6. Hominini split into chimps and...us (and again, still all apes).

So were're obviously not decended from gorillas or chimps. We share a common ancestor which was Homininae (#5). Which were apes. See here: Ape - Wikipedia

And while I'm asking, did humans and gorillas and chimps and bononos all branch off of the proto ape simultaneously? Or did the gorillas first branch off to humans and chimps (and yet continue their line of gorrilla-dom)...

See above for the sequence. Pretty easy, eh?

 

[linux.poet]

By the biological definitions and descriptions humans match all the characteristics of apes.

Physiologically and genetically humans are apes... if humans and the modern varieties of apes were specially created, they would still all be classified as apes, much as they are all classified as mammals.

Creationists usually have no trouble with the classification of "bird" and "fish" despite the differences amongst those groups being significantly larger than the differences between humans and chimps.

The reason why, is despite the biological similarities (which I also would dispute, most apes have thick coats of hair which humans do not have, thus sparing them from the use of clothing), there is an enormous psychological gulf between humans and chimpanzees that biology cannot account for.

Nobody is claiming that I am related to a bird or a fish. Claiming that I am a mere "ape" is somewhat psychologically insulting to some individuals. Chimpanzees do not wear clothes, do not have written language, have no concept of God, never went through an Industrial Revolution, do not have computers and cell phones and the Internet. There is something different about us that biology cannot explain that points to a God who created us, that said man and woman are made in the Image of God and have a soul and spirit that the other apes do not possess.

I would be more than happy to let biology describe things that are biological, and use psychology to explain things that are psychological, but that seems to be the explanation for resistance to the biological idea, a lack of ability to draw a distinction between those two fields. At least, that has been the problem historically, with the song "You can't make a monkey out of me" and whatnot.

The issue with the religious conviction as a mechanism for finding truth is that there isn't a clear way to distinguish between competing mutually exclusive religious interpretations.

Once you accept one "mutually exclusive religious interpretation" as true, other truth that aligns with the basic belief structures of your religion you can research and debate out into place.

From my perspective, what distinguishes one religious interpretation from another is a matter of historical and literary research. Christianity is based on actual historical events in my view. But that's getting off topic - this is the science forum. However, creationism and Christianity, I contend, explains the psychological gulf I mentioned earlier much better than evolution does. I believe that all sources of knowledge, not just science, need to be considered to form an accurate view of reality, not just picking and choosing the ones I happen to like.

 

[Joseph G]

Do we need vocabulary lessons too? "Photo" is short for "photograph". Pictures come in many kinds, including, but not limited to photographs, but also including drawings, sketches, paintings, engravings, and then there are those fancy "moving pictures".

That is a monkey, not an ape.

Prove how cousins work? Ask your mom. She'll tell you.

They don't teach HS biology in kindergarten, only in HS. Though, you could have learned the basics of the ape family in Jr. High, Middle School, or even upper elementary school depending on your local district. I probably learned it when I was 8 or so.

You had best remove the reference to my mom post haste.

 

[Joseph G]

They'd be Homininae. See below.

Correct. See below.

It was.

The same way a pigeon and an eagle go by the name of, sigh, bird. If you want a sequence of how it happened, this is it:

1. There were what is termed Catarrhini. Monkeys.

2. They evolved into two separate lineages: Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea. The former was a type of ape. The latter another type of monkey.

3. Hominoidea (they are all apes from now on) evolved into two separate lineages: Greater apes and Lesser apes.

4. Greater apes split into Homininae and Orangutans (they are still all apes)

5. Homininae split into Hominini and gorillas (yep, still all apes).

6. Hominini split into chimps and...us (and again, still all apes).

So were're obviously not decended from gorillas or chimps. We share a common ancestor which was Homininae (#5). Which were apes. See here: Ape - Wikipedia

See above for the sequence. Pretty easy, eh?

What, no million year interval time stamps marking each split? Somebody at that austere university Wikipedia is falling down on the job. I really didn't think you would expand on the fantasy. Alors, c'est la guerre!

 

[Bradskii]

You had best remove the reference to my mom post haste.

Which family member would you suggest could best explain the difference between your cousins and those from whom you are descended?

To help, your grandfather would be the equivalent of Hominoidea and your first cousins the equivalent of chimps.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The reason why, is despite the biological similarities (which I also would dispute, most apes have thick coats of hair which humans do not have, thus sparing them from the use of clothing), there is an enormous psychological gulf between humans and chimpanzees that biology cannot account for.

Humans and chimps aren't that different. All of the "unique" features of humans are found in other apes or primates, some of them are just exaggerated in humans. After all giraffes aren't the only mammals with necks, but they do have the longest necks. Humans have the greatest cognitive faculties.

Nobody is claiming that I am related to a bird or a fish.

They should be. Humans, birds, and fish are all vertebrate animals and are descended from the first animals with spines.

Claiming that I am a mere "ape" is somewhat psychologically insulting to some individuals.

We are all apes. There is nothing "mere" about it. It is just a simple fact that should have been learned by HS biology at the latest. (It's a big night for HS biology it would seem.)

Chimpanzees do not wear clothes, do not have written language, have no concept of God, never went through an Industrial Revolution, do not have computers and cell phones and the Internet.

I also don't have a concept of god, like many fellow apes.

There is something different about us that biology cannot explain that points to a God who created us, that said man and woman are made in the Image of God and have a soul and spirit that the other apes do not possess.

"Souls" and "spirts" are not supported by scientific evidence so any claims about them are religious in nature.

I would be more than happy to let biology describe things that are biological, and use psychology to explain things that are psychological, but that seems to be the explanation for resistance to the biological idea, a lack of ability to draw a distinction between those two fields. At least, that has been the problem historically, with the song "You can't make a monkey out of me" and whatnot.

Humans psychology is part of human biology.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You had best remove the reference to my mom post haste.

You don't seem to understand what cousins are and how they are related to you. Does your mom not know their parents and how they are related to you? I've never met your family, but I do know how cousins work in the abstract. Don't you? (I assumed you did, but I'm willing to be corrected if I was wrong.)

 

[Bradskii]

What, no million year interval time stamps marking each split? Somebody at that austere university Wikipedia is falling down on the job.

I didn't expect you to read the whole page, although it would have only taken you a few minutes and would explain almost everything that you seem not to know. But I thought the least you could have done is check the chart/family tree which notes the approximate time intervals.