Important interpretation? : does having been a monkey, help all future "evolutions" in a monkey way?

[Gottservant]

You are describing evolution as if it is a choice made by an individual and it isn't.


I thought I made it clear in the first response: It is almost impossible to backtrack an evolutionary path.

With the example of monkeys and humans, a human has a different structure and history to a monkey so if it were adapt to a monkey niche it would necessarily do it differently.

Yes but you are saying the history of the human was partly "as" monkey?

Was the transitioning to human still to do with trees or wasn't it?

You might get away with saying trees were less important, but you would still have to explain why?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes but you are saying the history of the human was partly "as" monkey?

Was the transitioning to human still to do with trees or wasn't it?

You might get away with saying trees were less important, but you would still have to explain why?

Yes our history as tree living was very important to us.

It's why we have nimble fingers, stereo vision and the ability to see colour.

But it was leaving the trees as our primary living space that let us become human.

The distant ancestors of humans would be described as monkeys, but a lot has happened to us since then so it isn't particularly useful to focus on our historical environment rather then our current one.

 

[disciple Clint]

There is no choices involved evolution. It's a process that occurs at the species level on a near geological time scale.

Modern monkeys do not live in the same environment as the ancestral population that became apes, so even with similar variations appearing they would not have the same pressures.

Also human development is unprecedentedly strange. There is no evidence of any species being as intelligent or technological as the human lineage.



1000 years is not in the slightest a long time.

Chimps are comparatively similar to humans than monkeys and that split occurred 4 to 6 million years ago.

There's also no reason to assume slightly greater intelligence, the loss of a tail, greater size and moving to a ground based lifestyle would be beneficial to any particular monkey species.

All that makes believing the bible super easy in comparison.

 

[trophy33]

All that makes believing the bible super easy in comparison.

Bible is actually quite hard to understand and no two people agree on a longer text in it.

Did you mean that the creation story in Genesis is super easy compared to scientific explanation? Sure, because its a different genre.

But as I am thinking of it, the creation story in Genesis is not easy to understand at all. Theologians of all schools of thought actually dispute about its meaning quite intensively for millennia. A surface reading can look easy, yes.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes our history as tree living was very important to us.

Ok. Right. This is the thing, what if humans approach "coding computers" the same way they did "climbing trees"? Would having been a monkey climbing trees, make the computer code more organised? Or is the time as a monkey lost, forever?

You can see what I am asking, right?

It's why we have nimble fingers, stereo vision and the ability to see colour.

But it was leaving the trees as our primary living space that let us become human.

The distant ancestors of humans would be described as monkeys, but a lot has happened to us since then so it isn't particularly useful to focus on our historical environment rather then our current one.

Just curious what are you thinking that confirms your preference for currency? Darwin?

 

[Shemjaza]

All that makes believing the bible super easy in comparison.

The important difference is evidence rather than your personal preference and religious conviction.

Ok. Right. This is the thing, what if humans approach "coding computers" the same way they did "climbing trees"? Would having been a monkey climbing trees, make the computer code more organised? Or is the time as a monkey lost, forever?

You can see what I am asking, right?

We are descended from monkeys, we weren't personally monkeys.

Our ancient ancestry has had a definite effect on our development, but I can't see a justification for focusing on any particular skill or trait that our ancestors had and we don't.

Just curious what are you thinking that confirms your preference for currency? Darwin?

I didn't mention "currency". When I said current I meant the modern time when humans live.

 

[Gottservant]

The important difference is evidence rather than your personal preference and religious conviction.

The evidence is, people are starting to trust the memory of Jesus on the cross.

We are descended from monkeys, we weren't personally monkeys.

Ok. So to be clear, you think we descended from monkeys without their instinct, and that if we had "personally" been monkeys then a little of their instinct would be passed on, or a lot?

Our ancient ancestry has had a definite effect on our development, but I can't see a justification for focusing on any particular skill or trait that our ancestors had and we don't.

Like I said, the metaphor of trees for structures of code, would be quite helpful.

The same might be said of reading maps, or building buildings or constructing cities, I could go on.

I didn't mention "currency". When I said current I meant the modern time when humans live.

I didn't mean "money" but 'currency, with the times'.

 

[disciple Clint]

The important difference is evidence rather than your personal preference and religious conviction.



We are descended from monkeys, we weren't personally monkeys.

Our ancient ancestry has had a definite effect on our development, but I can't see a justification for focusing on any particular skill or trait that our ancestors had and we don't.




I didn't mention "currency". When I said current I meant the modern time when humans live.

The important difference is evidence

Such as?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I'm not! Does God talk nonsense?

A selection pressure of valid concern, is one that tests how much it can build on the past.

I have told you before that claiming you are "evolved" does not help you escape the problem of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - this test springs directly out of an interest, in what Evolution can do for a thirst for change.

My thought is that you don't know or don't intend to know, what difference Evolution makes to real outcomes like work and helping people and leading and so you are tempted to write off inquiry into how Evolution can help these things to be. Don't be tempted!

Let me help you: it depends on how similar mutations are to one another? The more similar the mutations, the more likely that similar selection pressures will build on each other?

What do you think? Make sense?

I think that you still have made no attempt to even learn the basics of evolutionary theory and it shows.

 

[Shemjaza]

Such as?

The fossil evidence of transitional forms linking humans to the other primates.

The pattern of genetic similarities between humans an other living primate species. (Note, I say the pattern of similarity not just the degree of similarity).

The common patterns of evidence demonstrating an evolutionary relationship across all other life studied.

 

[Shemjaza]

The evidence is, people are starting to trust the memory of Jesus on the cross.

That's a belief based on tradition and the Bible, not a memory.

Ok. So to be clear, you think we descended from monkeys without their instinct, and that if we had "personally" been monkeys then a little of their instinct would be passed on, or a lot?

Us personally being monkeys is impossible.

Like I said, the metaphor of trees for structures of code, would be quite helpful.

The same might be said of reading maps, or building buildings or constructing cities, I could go on.

Metaphors and mental short hands can be very useful for many things, but it has nothing to do with imitating an ancient ancestor.

I didn't mean "money" but 'currency, with the times'.

Okay then, Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with being alive now and even the concept of preference for that doesn't make sense.

 

[Gottservant]

That's a belief based on tradition and the Bible, not a memory.

No, no, we had the original faith and we still wanted to remember it.

Us personally being monkeys is impossible.

So you lose what you learned as a monkey, for some reason?

Metaphors and mental short hands can be very useful for many things, but it has nothing to do with imitating an ancient ancestor.

It's to do with survival? The human that remembers what he was as a monkey, is more adapted than the human who risks becoming a monkey again.

Okay then, Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with being alive now and even the concept of preference for that doesn't make sense.

But you are alive now? What a strange way for you to live (believing that the truth is not "now")?

 

[Gottservant]

You could ask the opposite question: does being in pain, stop future Evolutions or focus them?

If you are in pain, you don't mate, so your genes aren't passed on.

On the other hand, if you have been in a lot of pain and recover, you pass on pain tolerant genes, right?

 

[Tanj]

When we lost our prehensile tails, playing on the monkey bars became too dangerous.

I broke my arm falling off a monkey bar.

 

[Tanj]

OK show one example anywhere in say the last 1000 years. 1000 years is a long time

Not from an evolutionary standpoint. From there, 1000 years is the blink of an eye.

now if a monkey can become human certainly one would have done so in the last 1000 years.

Why? It took humans and chimps 4 million years to get to where they are now.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, no, we had the original faith and we still wanted to remember it.

Still not a memory

So you lose what you learned as a monkey, for some reason?

You personally were never a monkey, so it's impossible to have learned anything as one.

We don't inherit memories from our parents, let alone memories from our ancient non-sentient ancestors.

It's to do with survival? The human that remembers what he was as a monkey, is more adapted than the human who risks becoming a monkey again.

A human can't remember being a monkey was never personally a monkey, will never personally be a monkey and even their descendants won't be monkeys.

But you are alive now? What a strange way for you to live (believing that the truth is not "now")?

That is not what I said.

You asked as if it being now was a preference linked to Darwin, which doesn't make any sense.

It being now is not a choice.

You could ask the opposite question: does being in pain, stop future Evolutions or focus them?

Basically irrelevant.

Individual action and experience isn't significantly relevant to evolution.

If you are in pain, you don't mate, so your genes aren't passed on.

In general that is possible... but unless there is a genetic component it's not relevant to evolution.

On the other hand, if you have been in a lot of pain and recover, you pass on pain tolerant genes, right?

If you have genes that make you able to endure pain it's possible that that represents an advantage, then it would be statistically likely to be passed on in the species.

 

[disciple Clint]

The fossil evidence of transitional forms linking humans to the other primates.

The pattern of genetic similarities between humans an other living primate species. (Note, I say the pattern of similarity not just the degree of similarity).

The common patterns of evidence demonstrating an evolutionary relationship across all other life studied.

What if any evidence is there for macro evolution?

 

[disciple Clint]

Not from an evolutionary standpoint. From there, 1000 years is the blink of an eye.



Why? It took humans and chimps 4 million years to get to where they are now.

OK my why question is WHY would it have stopped, if it ever happened in the past it should still be happening today. Do we see any monkeys turning into humans today?

 

[Shemjaza]

What if any evidence is there for macro evolution?

...I just listed the fossils and genetic patterns of relatedness?

 

[Shemjaza]

OK my why question is WHY would it have stopped, if it ever happened in the past it should still be happening today. Do we see any monkeys turning into humans today?

I'm said multiple times already, there's no reason to assume pressures on other primates would lead to the same results.

Modern monkeys don't live in the same environments, they don't have the same traits and they definitely don't have the same background as the ancestral populations that became apes.