Evolution Never Claimed Man Evolved from an Ape

[Anaximander]

Greetings,

I believe this issue deserves a thread of its own, because it points out the huge misconception anti-evolution creationists have about the evolutionary process. A few threads I participated in have anti-evolution creationists touting that "Darwinists" claim the first human evolved from a nonhuman, such as an ape:

"However pseudoscientsts i.e. Darwinists make the absurd claim that humans evolved from an ape. What ape gave birth to the first human and why?"

I've never understood the evolution mindset on this. Something had to have given birth to the first human being. Yes -- I'm familiar with the arguments that we appeared so gradually that it's impossible to tell; but that doesn't excuse the fact that something other than a human gave birth to the first human.

The suggestion here seems to be that a some point in the chain of reproduction one species (a non-human ape) must give birth to an entirely different species (a human). Sadly, biological evolution claims nothing of the sort. Nowhere does evolution say a species gave birth to anything other than their own species. I repeat, always, always, always, the same species gives birth to the same species. If this sounds confusing, it is because you do not understand the evolutionary process.

The reason why you do not understand this is because you believe evolution takes place on an individual level where at some point a Homo habilis gave birth to the first Homo erectus, and so on up to Homo sapiens.

Evolution ONLY occurs upon populations, not individuals. Populaitons also must possess multiple variations to select upon. If all individuals in a population were identical, evolution is impossible. Notice the tremendous variation in human being at a football game. Everyone looks so different. What this means is all generations mate with their own "kind" while evolution is occurring. After thousands of generations (while undergoing some kind of selective force such as sexual selection) they are still mating with their own kind, but the kind just looks different. After thousands of more generations, they are still mating with their own kind but they look even more different.

Anti-evolutionists, is it finally making sense, or has denial blinded you from seeing the sense of it?

best,

 

[Inept]

It's nice to see somebody put the effort in and explain evolution accurately and simply, however I fear that it'll fall on deaf ears.

I have no doubt that most creationists would have no problem understanding what evolution actually is, they just wouldn't want to.

Yay for willful ignorance.

 

[Doveaman]

After thousands of generations (while undergoing some kind of selective force such as sexual selection) they are still mating with their own kind, but the kind just looks different. After thousands of more generations, they are still mating with their own kind but they look even more different.

Anti-evolutionists, is it finally making sense, or has denial blinded you from seeing the sense of it?

Why is "making sense" or "denial" the only two alternatives?

It will make sense in "thousands of more generations" when I see how different I'll look. Then I'll be convinced.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The suggestion here seems to be that a some point in the chain of reproduction one species (a non-human ape) must give birth to an entirely different species (a human).

Hmmm. Do you claim we are talking about something other than the origin of species? Saying man comes from man therefore the origin of species is not evolution.

Sadly, biological evolution claims nothing of the sort.

So you claim that the origin of man is man?

Hmmm. How does that account for the origin of species?

Nowhere does evolution say a species gave birth to anything other than their own species. I repeat, always, always, always, the same species gives birth to the same species. If this sounds confusing, it is because you do not understand the evolutionary process.

ROFL.

Man gives birth to man. Sounds like no evolution to me.

The reason why you do not understand this is because you believe evolution takes place on an individual level where at some point a Homo habilis gave birth to the first Homo erectus, and so on up to Homo sapiens.

Is that not the Darwinist claim?

Evolution ONLY occurs upon populations, not individuals.

Do you claim that populations are made up of something other than individuals?

Populaitons also must possess multiple variations to select upon.

So you claim. If that's true I guess we are left with a dilemma. Does that mean asexual species don't evolve?

If all individuals in a population were identical, evolution is impossible.

Therefore it is impossible for asexual species to evolve. And we are left with the solution of creationism for the origin of asexual species.

Notice the tremendous variation in human being at a football game. Everyone looks so different.

So Darwinists claim. I say we are all human regardless of skin color.

What this means is all generations mate with their own "kind" while evolution is occurring.

So you claim. I guess that means that Neanderthals are our own kind.

After thousands of generations (while undergoing some kind of selective force such as sexual selection) they are still mating with their own kind, but the kind just looks different. After thousands of more generations, they are still mating with their own kind but they look even more different.

So you claim.

Anti-evolutionists, is it finally making sense, or has denial blinded you from seeing the sense of it?

I'd rather be blind than dumb.

 

[Anaximander]

Hmmm. Do you claim we are talking about something other than the origin of species? Saying man comes from man therefore the origin of species is not evolution.

You still do not get it Susa, which is actually why you still tout inaccuracies. Common ancestry is not the same thing as evolution. If you honestly had a science education from somewhere other than anti-evolution sources, you'd know this.

So you claim that the origin of man is man?

No

Hmmm. How does that account for the origin of species?

Yes ...the same way.

Man gives birth to man. Sounds like no evolution to me.

That's because you do not understand it.

So you claim. If that's true I guess we are left with a dilemma. Does that mean asexual species don't evolve?

There is no dilemma. It's why bacteria evolve so slowing if at all. This is exactly what the fossil record shows. There is still evolution because mutation in duplication guarantees some variation, just not as much.

So Darwinists claim. I say we are all human regardless of skin color.

That's my point. We only reproduce with our own kind, while a population is evolving.

So you claim. I guess that means that Neanderthals are our own kind.

Never said that.


best,

 

[AV1611VET]

Greetings

Greetings to you --

Evolution Never Claimed Man Evolved from an Ape

Then why do some of our ancestors have "pithecus" in their names?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You still do not get it Susa, which is actually why you still tout inaccuracies. Common ancestry is not the same thing as evolution. If you honestly had a science education from somewhere other than anti-evolution sources, you'd know this.

You simply don't know the textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism which is "common descent via natural selection and undirected random mutation."

No wonder you believe in it; you don't know what it is.

There is no dilemma. It's why bacteria evolve so slowing if at all.

Fact: bacteria do not evolve.

Cyanobacteria is the same today as it was 3 billion years ago.

 

[Mike Elphick]

You still do not get it Susa, which is actually why you still tout inaccuracies. Common ancestry is not the same thing as evolution. If you honestly had a science education from somewhere other than anti-evolution sources, you'd know this.

You simply don't know the textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism which is "common descent via natural selection and undirected random mutation."

I don't know which text book you got this from, but even so, the term 'Neo-Darwinism' refers to current evolutionary theory whereas Anaximander was trying to tell you that common ancestry/descent (In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms have common descent if they have a common ancestor) is not the same as evolution (the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations).

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe the 'synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics, often called the Modern Synthesis, because it unites ideas from several biological specialties to provide a widely accepted account of evolution.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I've always said that the day a crocodile gives birth to a crocoduck, I'll gladly reject ToE in favor of another theory.

BTW, nice to see a person of faith with an appropriate and accurate understanding of ToE. Kudos.

 

[Biologist]

You simply don't know the textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism which is "common descent via natural selection and undirected random mutation."

No wonder you believe in it; you don't know what it is.

What textbook? Really I'd be interested in purchasing it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've always said that the day a crocodile gives birth to a crocoduck, I'll gladly reject ToE in favor of another theory.

How about rabbits in the Precambrian?

 

[Gracchus]

How about rabbits in the Precambrian?

Well, there is so much evidence for evolution, that a rabbit in the precambrian would cause me to seriously consider the possibility of time travel.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

How about rabbits in the Precambrian?

What about them?

 

[MoonLancer]

Fact: bacteria do not evolve.
.

I guess the flue shot is the same year after year huh

And one bacteria that has not changed is not evidence for all bacteria not changing. This is assuming i even believe you.

 

[MoonLancer]

How about rabbits in the Precambrian?

This would be compelling. Do you have a link?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What textbook? Really I'd be interested in purchasing it.

"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

How about rabbits in the Precambrian?

All we need, according to Dawkins, is "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum."

E.g. an octopus in the Cretaceous: Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2009) — New finds of 95 million year old fossils reveal much earlier origins of modern octopuses. These are among the rarest and unlikeliest of fossils. The chances of an octopus corpse surviving long enough to be fossilized are so small that prior to this discovery only a single fossil species was known, and from fewer specimens than octopuses have legs.

Even if you have never encountered an octopus in the flesh, the eight arms, suckers, and sack-like body are almost as familiar a body-plan as the four legs, tail and head of cats and dogs. Unlike our vertebrate cousins, however, octopuses don't have a well-developed skeleton. And while this famously allows them to squeeze into spaces that a more robust animal could not, it does create problems for scientists interested in evolutionary history.

"... we could also consider the shoe print, you know, that was found near Antelope Springs Utah by William Meister. And he found that in the year 1968. He was a researcher, a collector of fossils, and he was breaking open pieces of slate rock at this place Antelope Springs and when he broke open one piece of rock he found a shoe print. You know, my coauthor Richard Thompson went to visit William Meister in Utah and he was able to see this specimen, he was able to take photographs of it, and we did a computer analysis, and we showed that the shape of this impression in the rock is exactly like that of a shoe print. And if you look at your shoe, at the bottom of your shoe, you can usually see where your heel is worn down in a certain place, so this print had that same feature in it and also crushed in the middle of the foot print was the fossil of a trilobyte. Now a trilobyte is a shellfish that existed about 500 million years ago in what's called the Cambrian Period." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008

 

[Mike Elphick]

What textbook? Really I'd be interested in purchasing it.

"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

Not from a text book then, or even from the pen of a biologist, but the scribblings of a creationist:-

"Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence. ... Intelligent design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation." -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

No wonder he can't distinguish between biological evolution and 'change over time'

.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Not from a text book then, or even from the pen of a biologist, but the scribblings of a creationist:-

"Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence. ... Intelligent design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation." -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

No wonder he can't distinguish between biological evolution and 'change over time'

.

Allow me to refer you to allegedly infallible Scripture: Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mike Elphick]

"... we could also consider the shoe print, you know, that was found near Antelope Springs Utah by William Meister...

There are the usual problems: whilst there are undoubted resemblances between the shape of the print and that of a shoe sole, part of the imprint is missing. Furthermore, if the imprint really is of a shoe worn by a (presumably air-breathing) human, we have to explain the presence of trilobites (a marine creature) in the same stratum. This ancient pedestrian must have been walking on the sea bed. Worse, there is no trace of pressure exerted by the supposed wearer of the shoe upon the trilobite (despite the alleged compaction of the sand grains) and the supposed heel is formed by a crack that runs across the whole slab, continuing beyond the ‘footprint’. Similar patterns have been found throughout the Wheeler formation, while concentric oval shapes of varying colour, sometimes with a stepped profile, are what were interpreted by Burdick and Bitter as in situ footprints or sandal prints. Moreover, it is telling that Meister and Bitter’s discoveries were announced in The Creation Research Society Quarterly by Melvin A Cook, while Burdick’s appeared in The Bible-Science Newsletter of August/September 1969: Clifford Burdick was not simply a geologist, but a well known creationist whose work aimed at demonstrating a young earth.
A supposed human footprint from Antelope Springs (Nevada, USA)

You know, this is all a bit like natural selection. After spending years sifting through thousands of rocks and stones, there's bound to be one that looks like something, such as a footprint, or finger or whatever. As soon as the guy picks it up he is selecting it from all the other bits of rock that don't look like anything significant. Creationists put them in their museums.

I've seen a lump of Carboniferous flint picked up from the beach that looks just like a human skull, and is now used as a door-stopper (by someone with more sense).