A thread on evolution

[createdtoworship]

Seems like we could save some time and see how this post was responded to in 2014!

Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

sure if you didn't want to do your own homework. But I have been doing this along time, I told you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why is it so scary to think of humans as great apes? Just curious why this is so very, very scary to some people.

just unscientific really.

 

[Obliquinaut]

sure if you didn't want to do your own homework. But I have been doing this along time, I told you.

I already did my homework and found your post from 3 years ago where this same suite of topics was completed. (Sorry if my efficiency bothers you).

I'm not really impressed with your 10-12 years of work on this topic, as I said, I've been discussing YEC and Creation and evolution for about 30+ years.

PLUS I'm a professional researcher, so doing my homework is kinda my thing.

 

[Obliquinaut]

just unscientific really.

Hmmm, how so? I've seen the discussions around this, but I don't see how you can claim your conclusion to be "unscientific". (I actually suspect your position is wholly and perfectly "religious" in nature, which is why it is probably so scary). But I'd be glad to see why your position is "scientific" and the opposing position is "unscientific".

 

[pitabread]

If one simply ignores the data, or as a lay person simply "dismisses it" out of hand then by definition everyone is avoiding his question. Isn't this Creationist Debate Camp 101?

Very much so. I do find every time creationists bring up transitionals, they also bring their own private set of criteria for what would qualify in their minds and consequently tend to dismiss everything out of hand. Heck, I've seen creationists go so far as to argue that transitional fossils must be of the exact specific organisms that would have passed on their DNA, otherwise they don't count.

So yeah, it's easy to set up a question that no scientist could ever answer when one starts invoking private, arbitrary criteria.

Never seen anyone run and away and hide from it, though.

 

[pitabread]

you will have to prove with peer review preferably why men are apes

This is basic taxonomy. We're classified as part of the family Hominidae which is colloquially known as the "great apes". It includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

You don't need some peer review journal paper for this. Even a basic high school biology textbook should cover it.

 

[majj27]

This is basic taxonomy. We're classified as part of the family Hominidae which is colloquially known as the "great apes". It includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

You don't need some peer review journal paper for this. Even a basic high school biology textbook should cover it.

Here's the tree that I found:

The Hominidae are the "Great Apes", colloquially. Genus Homo, on the bottom left, that's us. We're the "Great Ape" family, so that makes us Great Apes.

EDIT: Apparently, Pan should be linked under Hominini, not Gorillini. That makes both Pan and Homo Hominini

 

[Subduction Zone]

you will have to prove with peer review preferably why men are apes, but ultimately there will need to be a link between two genra, which you have not provided.

the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).


“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

Do you know what "above the species level" means? It means when one a new species is formed. That means that the two groups can no longer interbreed. Your first link does not work, but your second one does:

"Speciation is a key concept in macroevolution, in which the generation of new species and loss of species are major areas of study."

Second it has been well known for ages that men are apes. Men belong to the family of hominidae. That is the family of great apes. Some light reading for you:

Hominidae - Wikipedia
Hominidae | primate family
Hominidae - New World Encyclopedia
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/hominidae.htm

This change has come in our lifetime. The reason for the change was due to advancement in the theory of evolution and of course DNA. Since we are more closely related to chimps and they to us, than either of us are to gorillas, as shown by DNA, it only makes sense that if chimps and gorillas are great apes, then we must be great apes too.

Perhaps you don't know how evolution works. Many creationists think that there is a "change of kind" in evolution. There never is. All of your descendants will be humans, no matter how much they evolve. And since one of your ancient ancestors was an ape you are an ape, no matter how much you may have changed from that ancestor.

By the way, this is not the sort of information that one finds in a single "peer reviewed article". You do not seem to understand that either. Peer review goes over simple single points of evidence usually. Not large changes in definitions of families.

 

[Subduction Zone]

these are common misconceptions. Neanderthal had a human like cheek bone, and not an ape like shovel face.

You keep making the same error. Since Neanderthal is an ape like you and me, it had an "ape like cheek bone".

 

[Subduction Zone]

sure if you didn't want to do your own homework. But I have been doing this along time, I told you.

Please, when you have not done your homework you should never accuse others of not doing theirs.

 

[createdtoworship]

I already did my homework and found your post from 3 years ago where this same suite of topics was completed. (Sorry if my efficiency bothers you).

I'm not really impressed with your 10-12 years of work on this topic, as I said, I've been discussing YEC and Creation and evolution for about 30+ years.

PLUS I'm a professional researcher, so doing my homework is kinda my thing.

then you should be able to refute stuff from now, or three years ago. Sorry if I don't see the efficiency your talking about.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please, when you have not done your homework you should never accuse others of not doing theirs.

I provided you a peer review of my definition of macro evolution. Which remains unrefuted. You just changed the subject after being defeated and started posting on other peoples conversations to get out of the oven. if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. My mom always said.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you know what "above the species level" means? It means when one a new species is formed. That means that the two groups can no longer interbreed. Your first link does not work, but your second one does:

"Speciation is a key concept in macroevolution, in which the generation of new species and loss of species are major areas of study."

Second it has been well known for ages that men are apes. Men belong to the family of hominidae. That is the family of great apes. Some light reading for you:

Hominidae - Wikipedia
Hominidae | primate family
Hominidae - New World Encyclopedia
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/hominidae.htm

This change has come in our lifetime. The reason for the change was due to advancement in the theory of evolution and of course DNA. Since we are more closely related to chimps and they to us, than either of us are to gorillas, as shown by DNA, it only makes sense that if chimps and gorillas are great apes, then we must be great apes too.

Perhaps you don't know how evolution works. Many creationists think that there is a "change of kind" in evolution. There never is. All of your descendants will be humans, no matter how much they evolve. And since one of your ancient ancestors was an ape you are an ape, no matter how much you may have changed from that ancestor.

By the way, this is not the sort of information that one finds in a single "peer reviewed article". You do not seem to understand that either. Peer review goes over simple single points of evidence usually. Not large changes in definitions of families.

hominidae is not taxonomy, and has been updated by biased evolutionists. Like the term quote mine, it too is added to aid in debate but has no official scientific backing. If so please provide peer review.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here's the tree that I found:

The Hominidae are the "Great Apes", colloquially. Genus Homo, on the bottom left, that's us. We're the "Great Ape" family, so that makes us Great Apes.

EDIT: Apparently, Pan should be linked under Hominini, not Gorillini. That makes both Pan and Homo Hominini

see my last post, i already refuted this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I provided you a peer review of my definition of macro evolution. Which remains unrefuted. You just changed the subject after being defeated and started posting on other peoples conversations to get out of the oven. if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. My mom always said.

No, you didn't . You provided articles. None of those were "peer review". You do not seem to understand that concept.

And no, you simply did not understand those articles.

And don't make up stories. You did not defeat me. When you are always in the wrong you cannot defeat anyone.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

see my last post, i already refuted this.

Nope.

Why do you keep making such obvious and false claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

hominidae is not taxonomy, and has been updated by biased evolutionists. Like the term quote mine, it too is added to aid in debate but has no official scientific backing. If so please provide peer review.

Wrong again, but then what else is new?

 

[createdtoworship]

say that hominids are in fact a legitimate term, they simply are at the same level as family. so yes there would be two different genus in the family.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope.

Why do you keep making such obvious and false claims?

see my last post, i just refuted this

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong again, but then what else is new?

do you have peer review that hominid is a more suitable term than family? If not then please let the rationalists debate for once.