Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not Jon, but I feel like answering.

How do you define, 'human'?

See definition of "Homo Sapiens".

How did you arrive at these figures, 3,000-10,000?

Measurements concerning the genetic variations in our collective genome.
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/bottlenecks.html

How can you trace genetics back in time? A theoretical genetic trace may not reflect the
historic genetic development.

I guess there are various ways to do this. I'm not a geneticist though, so I'll pass on a technical explanation.

I did read about it a couple years back.
An interesting phenomena concerning human genetics is how it relates to the out-of-africa history.

So, here's the scenario...
Humans evolve in a specific region in Africa. We'll call this the "mother population".
That's where ALL the genetic variation among humans is located at that point in time.

A group/tribe, (much) smaller then the mother population starts migrating and spreads out from there to europe and asia. This event marks a genetic bottleneck among the group that is migrating, since this group becomes genetically isolated from the mother population remaining in africa.

A part of this group settles in Asia and the other in Europe. Fast forward in time to the present day. Now, we have an interesting observation to make....
This observation is: there is less genetic variation between a random european and a random chinese person, then there is between an african and his unrelated neighbour.

Think about that for a second. It bears repeating:

There is LESS genetic variation between a random caucasian and a random asian, then there is between 2 africans, living in the neighbouring tribes or villages. Or even potentially in the same street.

Isn't genetics awesome? I sure think so.
On that note, I'ld love to participate in the genographic project.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

Kind of expensive though


EDIT: another interesting phenomena, is that languages around the world, seem to be following along the very same lines. We can look at languages and identify how many different "sounds" there are in a specific language. The differences between languages is what we could call "variation", in the genetic sense.

Now get this.... we see the exact same thing. There is a LOT more variation among african languages then in the rest of the world. Certain african tribes have upto 500 sounds and more. Many of which, are only found in Africa. Like those "click" sounds. Purely in terms of different sounds, Germanic and Roman languages are pretty much the same. Asian languages aren't that different either. The most variation, is -again- seen in Africa.

Exactly as we would expect, in light of an evolutionary history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Studying and learning about the bible through language study and hermeneutics and exegesis.

I wonder if Jesus and His disciples took all those fancy classes that teach what the Bible doesn't say, instead of what It does say?

Genesis 3:1a Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,

 

[rjs330]

It's called following the evidence to a logical conclusion. Do you know how the scientific method works? We make the observation that populations change over time and species share similarities to each other. We hypothesize that all life on earth is related. We gather the evidence in the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, DNA, observations in nature and in experimentation in the lab. All of these studies converge on the same conclusion. That all life is related and shares a common ancestor.



Is evidence in a court of law only evidence and not good enough? If I have DNA evidence of a murder suspect, can I not convict them of the crime? You need to learn how to use the scientific method. Starting at a conclusion and working backwards is what creationists do. Here is a good question for you: What predictions about the natural world can creationism make? What falsifiable test could potentially disprove creation? Evolution answers these questions for itself. It has passed every test and has predictive abilities.



You're describing yourself. My life doesn't depend on if evolution is true or not. It's just what the evidence shows. Reality doesn't care what you want.



It was a spider. Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. There are 35,000+ species of spiders.

Then there was no common ancestor. If a spider was a spider then there is no common ancestor and evolution is false. The fact that certain creatures may adapt to changing conditions is no evidence of evolution as presented as all things having a common ancestor. You just admitted it by stating a spider was always a spider.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then there was no common ancestor. If a spider was a spider then there is no common ancestor and evolution is false. The fact that certain creatures may adapt to changing conditions is no evidence of evolution as presented as all things having a common ancestor. You just admitted it by stating a spider was always a spider.

Didn't spiders come from octopodes?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no evidence for common ancestry, no evidence of a universal common ancestor

That's just plain ridiculously wrong.
Not only is there evidence for common ancestry, it is a genetic fact.

There are many hypothesis regarding the origin of life, as yet, science is in the dark to
how life originated

Newsflash: "origins of life" is a different subject as opposed to the "evolution of already existing life".

Science is not even sure what the prevailing conditions were when
life began.

Where first life comes from, how it formed, how it was "created",... all irrelevant to the fact of evolution.

Monkeys and humans have different genetic coding, unrelated.

No, they don't.

You are a believer brother, a believer in naturalism. I am not a believer brother in
naturalism. Science cannot prove naturalism, that is a belief system. Belief systems
have no proofs. Mathematics has axioms and proofs, natural sciences are belief systems.

"naturalism" has nothing to do with evolution either.
Evolution is fact based. You can't argue with the facts. You can try, but you will not be successfull.

For example, I don't think a devout christian like Francis Collins subscribes to "naturalism", yet he has no problems with mainstream evolution theory.

Evolution can never be proven to be true, you are reaching beyond your domain.

The model of evolution theory, can not be "proven", just like no other theory in science can be "proven".

But the facts are what they are. There are the facts of evolution and then there is the theory wich explains the facts.

Common ancestry is such a fact. Evolution theory is a model that explains that fact. Which explains how a common ancestral population over the generation diversified in all the species we know today.

This theoretical hierarchy is a naturalistic, theoretical, evolutionary tree.

The nested hierarchy of genetics is not a "theory". It is, again, a fact.
All it takes is compare genomes and literally count the genes and map them out. A phylogenetic tree is the result. These days, we even have machines that do this automatically. No human hand is present in "force fitting" genomes on this tree.

Again, you can try and argue with the facts, but you will not be successfull.

But hey, knock yourself out. For example, try finding me a reptile with an inner earbone. Or a mammal with feathers. Or even just a mammal with inactive DNA to build feathers. Or a creature, any creature, other then a primate with which humans share more ERV's then with primates.

There's literally a bazillion ways to potentially "break" this hierarchical nature of life. Nobody has ever been succesfull in doing so. But go ahead, try....

Find me an amphibian with hair and change the world!

Which has no trunk, no common ancestor, not even a reasonable idea to how life began.

And again with the "origin of life"....
Please dude... Get it into your head that these are different subjects.
Evolution doesn't address the origins of life. It is out of scope, in every sense of the word.

Exactly what a believer will see when one has been conditioned in any belief system.

No. Exactly what the model of evolution predicts: a branching tree. Exactly like a family tree.

No amphibians or reptiles have hair, because hair is a trait of the mammal branch.

Did early life have DNA?

Or a precursor of it.

 

[Speedwell]

I have a degree in bible literature not a degree in worldwide Christian belief systems. During my studies we learned a little about a couple denominations but not world wide beliefs. As expected the focus as on bible literature. Studying and learning about the bible through language study and hermeneutics and exegesis.

You made the claim so I would like you to prove it.

Claim??? Prove??? What are you talking about? I merely made a commonplace observation about a couple of recognized and well-known religious denominations who do not keep their doctrine a secret. Nothing the least bit controversial about it. You act as though I said something which contradicted some cherished belief of yours about the Eastern churches, but how can that be when you admit to knowing nothing about them?

But maybe I'll get around to it, right after I "prove" my "claim" that the Catholic church has Pope.

 

[rjs330]

99.9% of ERV insertions in the human genome insert in the same place in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if you share a common ancestor. Shared ERVs also fall into a nested hierarchy, exactly what we'd expect.



Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That is abiogenesis. How many times are creationists gonna drag out this dishonest strawman?



Do you say this to all scientific theories? Do you not wash your hands because germ theory of disease is not "proven"?
Or is it just evolution that you whine about it because it threatens your religious beliefs?



Keep telling yourself that. Tell me....why shouldn't someone take antibiotics for a viral infection?



Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It has nothing to do with it. It describes how existing life evolves. Do you understand that now?



Evolution can make accurate predictions about the natural world. That makes the scientific theory very strong. What prediction can creationism offer and what falsifiable test can it run?

Antibiotics are,taken because they,are proven to work. It was only theoretical until it was tried. Once it was found to work it became proven. Evolution cannot make accurate predictions. For example, what is a spider evolving into? What will a spider be in a million years? How about a billion? How about a 100? If you tell me it will,be a,spider you have just shown that evolution is false. Why? Because evolution claims all things evolved from a common ancestor from which all life including monkeys and spiders evolved. The common ancestor became something it wasn't in the beginning. Of evolution is as drastic a change as claimed then drastic changes should still be taking place. Its all nonsense and a,belief system.

 

[rjs330]

What is it with Creationists and their almost pathological compulsion to dishonestly ask questions that

have
been
answered

three times already?

And the answer has been it was always a spider therefore disproving a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

In the days of Paul there was no New Testament.

I don't get your point.

 

[rjs330]

You're very confused. Evolution happened. Science has uncovered how it happened. You might not like that fact. You may even not understand that fact. But it is a fact.



No, your literalist interpretation of Genesis leads you to conclude evolution didn't happen because you ignore all the evidence from God's creation that it did happen.



And yet you're claiming that it does by denying that it provides enormous amounts of evidence for deep time and evolution.



Says the man who places his interpretation of Genesis over the creation and the evidence for deep time and evolution it provides to us.

How can evolution be a fact? I am told that it can't be proven and doesn't have to be. If it can't be proven it can't be a fact.

 

[rjs330]

I wonder if Jesus and His disciples took all those fancy classes that teach what the Bible doesn't say, instead of what It does say?

Genesis 3:1a Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,

I agree completely. What I discovered in those fancy classes is that the bible can be understood by people without all the education. Its not that hard. The common reading of scripture is easy and is usually correct. What I did learn is my education helps with getting a deeper understanding and helps when I may not fully grasp or understand something and I'm a little confused. It also helps when talking to people who twist scripture to fit their personal philosophies and want to teach that to others. But you are right. The early church certainly didn't need a degree to learn,from the apostles letters.

 

[Speedwell]

How can evolution be a fact? I am told that it can't be proven and doesn't have to be. If it can't be proven it can't be a fact.

Evolution is a fact. There are species alive on the Earth now which have not always been here. There were other species once here which are here no longer. That's a fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how that happened. So far, it's the best explanation consistent with the evidence which anyone has yet come up with.

 

[rjs330]

Claim??? Prove??? What are you talking about? I merely made a commonplace observation about a couple of recognized and well-known religious denominations who do not keep their doctrine a secret. Nothing the least bit controversial about it. You act as though I said something which contradicted some cherished belief of yours about the Eastern churches, but how can that be when you admit to knowing nothing about them?

But maybe I'll get around to it, right after I "prove" my "claim" that the Catholic church has Pope.

Well you said they don't believe in creation. Which sounds like something you have knowledge of. All I wanted to know is what they do believe and why.

 

[rjs330]

Evolution is a fact. There are species alive on the Earth now which have not always been here. There were other species once here which are here no longer. That's a fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how that happened. So far, it's the best explanation consistent with the evidence which anyone has yet come up with.

Oh dear, are we talking two different things here? I am beginning to wonder. There is the evolution of a specific creature such as a moth who changes its look based upon environmental influences but remains a moth. That kind of change does NOT disprove Genesis in any way shape,or form. Then there's the evolution where where we all came from common ancestor which DIRECTLY contradicts Genesis. They are not the same thing. A spider or moth that adapts to it surroundings yet was always a moth or always a,spider and will,remain so for all eternity is not common ancestor evolution. A monkey has been a monkey from the beginning of time. It was never anything else. Common ancestry contradicts scripture. Adaptation does not.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes there is. For starters, you could actually respond to the question asked.



Try staying on topic. We're not talking about the existence of God. We're talking about the fact that the Creation tells us that deep time is real, evolution happened and the Flood didn't. Any chance you can address those facts instead of rambling on about dark matter? Any chance you can actually address SN 1987A?

LOL---I'm the last person to discuss the "science" of evolution. All I remember from high school was that some sort of big bang happened, some sort of cell appeared in some sort of primordial sludge that grew into a fish that came on land and changed slowly into a monkey, an ape and then a man----I really don't care what they say--there is no way to prove that a cell or whatever happened to be in the right kind of sludge to sustain it and to grow into something---How is anyone going to prove that? Is it reproducible? Can somebody create this beginning out of nothing in a test tube and at least grow one cell? If not, then I have no interest in anything about it. I know nothing else about it and could care less. I have no idea what SN 1987A is. I don't even know what you mean by deep time. If we're not discussing God, then why are you making the statement that the flood didn't happen when we believe that was an act of God? So, there is nothing for me to discuss with you! I believe the flood happened---you're not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours so this is going to go nowhere and see no reason to continue with you.
I pointed out about science is just now starting to find out about light, finding out what they used to think is all wrong and that what they did find out now is making the fact the God created light before He created the sun not so silly of a statement. And I was merely stating that science will yet find out more. that may change what they think about other things they're so positive about now. That is all I wanted to say so you can chill out and continue your blather with someone else who cares!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So...theoretically...all pies came from a common dough...that just appeared in the kitchen... Cool logic - brilliant!

Pies are not a living system. I award you no points and an F in biology. You'll have to retake the class next semester.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If a spider was a spider then there is no common ancestor and evolution is false. The fact that certain creatures may adapt to changing conditions is no evidence of evolution as presented as all things having a common ancestor. You just admitted it by stating a spider was always a spider.

You just demonstrated that you don't understand how evolution works. Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals.

 

[Speedwell]

Well you said they don't believe in creation. Which sounds like something you have knowledge of. All I wanted to know is what they do believe and why.

That's a lie, I never said any such thing. I said they didn't believe in your Bible doctrine, not the same thing at all.

Here is an interesting essay by Russian Orthodox Priest. See if you can find in it anything about your Bible doctrine.

"First of all, let us be clear. With the interpretation of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, we are not talking about dogmas. If there are Christians who are happy to interpret those first chapters literally, then so be it. However, I think that they are a tiny minority among all Christians.

After all, the conflict between Darwin's theory of evolution and the literal interpretation of Genesis affected and affects above all Protestant societies, as in nineteenth century Britain or in the present-day United States. This is because Protestants lack a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures. That is, they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'. This explains why Darwin's theories have posed far fewer problems in both Roman Catholic and Orthodox societies than in Protestant societies."

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/towardso.htm

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is the evolution of a specific creature such as a moth who changes its look based upon environmental influences but remains a moth

Every living species ever born was the same as its parents because evolution takes place in populations, not individuals.
Lets see if you understand how those changes occur. What mechanism is at work when a population of moths changes?

Then there's the evolution where where we all came from common ancestor which DIRECTLY contradicts Genesis

And evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. Shared ERVs for humans and chimps has already been explained in this thread. Lets look at another species shall we? We can make the observation that whales have vestigial hip and leg bones in their skeleton. We can hypothesize that their ancestors were 4 legged land mammals. We not only see the evidence for this in the fossil record but when we look at DNA we see that whales closest living relative is the hippo. Common ancestry confirmed.....again.

 

[mmksparbud]

That's another silly thing---evolution takes place in population, not individuals. Well, heck---what does a population consist of but individuals? How can it take place in a population without it taking place in an individual???