• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Commander

A son of God.
Apr 10, 2015
830
99
Oklahoma
✟16,562.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,159
7,464
31
Wales
✟428,519.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Yes it does, and it debunks yours, now doesn't it.

It does nothing of the sort. It just shows that you are incredibly gullible and will belief anything that someone has written down.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RedPonyDriver
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,308
9,097
65
✟432,635.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but your hyperbolic and simultaneously vacuous rhetoric is not actually addressing the evidence.



Again, there is no proof in science. If you wish to be taken seriously, learn to use the proper verbiage. As far as evidence of common ancestry, there is a bunch of it. You might not be aware of it. You might not understand it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/



You sure do make a lot of assertions on a topic you know anything about.
Hundreds of papers on arachinid evolution.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=arachnid++evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,31&as_sdtp=
Thousands of papers on spider evolution.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=spider+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31
And a spider-like fossil that's not quite a spider yet.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/300-million-year-old-fossil-reveals-evolution-of-spiders/
>> the "almost spider" lacks only the spinnerets that spiders use to turn silk into webs."It's not quite a spider, but it's very close to being one," said study researcher Russell Garwood, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. <<

You know I looked at those links and found nothing that answered my question. There is no evidence there that I saw or read that says anything about what a spider was before it was a spider. In fact a number of them admitted they no little about the evolution of spiders and they admit much is speculation. And the almost a spider isn't a spider. It lists several differences. Its a very interesting creature but doesn't prove anything. Unless you suppose or assume. Which also is admitted in papers.

More evidence that evolution is nothing but a bunch of assuptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Commander
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You know I looked at those links and found nothing that answered my question. There is no evidence there that I saw or read that says anything about what a spider was before it was a spider. In fact a number of them admitted they no little about the evolution of spiders and they admit much is speculation. And the almost a spider isn't a spider. It lists several differences. Its a very interesting creature but doesn't prove anything. Unless you suppose or assume. Which also is admitted in papers.

More evidence that evolution is nothing but a bunch of assuptions.

Your entire paragraph was nothing but rambling incredulity that didn't address a single thing. Just you repeatedly saying "nuh uh!". And then you wrap it up with a nice Creationist magic word bow. Assumptions.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Commander

A son of God.
Apr 10, 2015
830
99
Oklahoma
✟16,562.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You know I looked at those links and found nothing that answered my question. There is no evidence there that I saw or read that says anything about what a spider was before it was a spider. In fact a number of them admitted they no little about the evolution of spiders and they admit much is speculation. And the almost a spider isn't a spider. It lists several differences. Its a very interesting creature but doesn't prove anything. Unless you suppose or assume. Which also is admitted in papers.

More evidence that evolution is nothing but a bunch of assuptions.

"Much as we might like to avoid it, all scientific tests involve making assumptions": http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_13
Yeah, they want us to believe that their assumptions are really facts! Have a blessed day, brother.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
According to the present hypothesis based on a theoretical idea that the fossils of primates, have a common ancestry with man. There is no clear evidence that we can make this
association. That the primate fossils in the Rift valley, indicate that homo sapiens originated in Africa.

I reject this speculative hypothesis.

I'll give you an A for weasel words, but a D- for your anthropology and biology. Humans share common ancestry with primates because we are primates. The evidence common ancestry is overwhelming. The presence of a broken GULO gene in all primates (including humans) is a slam dunk by itself. And since you're conflating taxa, I can't be sure to what you're referring re: primate fossils in the Rift Valley. Did you mean to write "hominid fossils". That said, you do realize that the evidence comes from both fossils and genetics, right? And that the genetics confirm the fossil record. Genetic analysis confirms the Khoisan people are the oldest humans on earth.
http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2014-news/Miller12-2014
>> The study investigated 420,000 genetic variants across 1,462 genomes from 48 ethnic groups in populations worldwide. These analyses reveal that Southern African Khoisans are genetically distinct not only from Europeans and Asians, but also from all other Africans. The paper's first author Hie Lim Kim, formerly at Penn State and now at Nanyang Technological University, said "It is fascinating to unravel the population history of humankind over the last 150,000 years." <<

May I ask how you know when the advent of the first cities occurred?

Because I majored in history and have a keen interest in both history and archaeology. There are plenty of older settlements and cave dwellings that have been discovered, but the first proto-cities that we know of are Catal Huyuk in Turkey and Jericho in the West Bank, both dating from about 10,000 years ago.

Scientists do this all the time, feel free to propose any hypothesis you wish.

No, scientists don't just "make stuff up". They make observations and propose an explanation based on the evidence. What you proposed - "Mankind probably wandered down into Africa to escape a widespread drought in the middle east." is just making stuff up.

I have hard evidence, that the first human settlements occurred in the Middle East. You do not have hard evidence of human settlements in Africa before my evidence, just speculation."

You keep using words that are not consistent with the discussion. "Settlements" is a very vague term. Are you referring to encampments, villages, proto-cities or what? We have plenty of evidence that humans and earlier species of Homo were active in Africa long before we find evidence of them outside of Africa. Homo erectus was amazingly successful and during it's 2 million year run, migrated as far as Indonesia and China. But since we're talking Homo sapiens, you need to be more specific as to what you mean by "settlements". The Meadowcraft Rockshelter was built 16,000 years ago in Pennsylvania. The cave paintings on Lasceaux, France are 17-20,000 years old.

cont. -
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No analysis on earth can state that Africa was the geographical origin of mankind,

Well, apart from the genetic, fossil and archeological evidence.

That is impossible. It is usually assumed that there is little natural selection for oragainst a particular haplotype mutation which has survived to the present day. (wikipedia)
Did you spot one of the assumptions, UScognito?

Yeah, you assumed that if you could look through the article and find one use of the word assumed that you could poison the entire well. You assumed incorrectly.

Haplogroups pertain to a single line of descent, usually dating back thousands of years (wikipedia)

We are only going back thousands of years.

You should have read further.
>> Groups with mutation M89
(mutation M89 occurred ~45,000 bp) <<

>> Groups with mutation M168
(mutation M168 occurred ~50,000 bp) <<

>> Groups without mutation M168
Haplogroup A
(M91) (Africa, especially the Khoisan and Nilotes) <<

And from the Haplogroup A page:
>> Estimates of its time depth have varied greatly, at either close to 190 kya or close to 140 kya in separate 2013 studies,[5][7] and with the inclusion of the previously unknown "A00" haplogroup to about 270 kya in 2015 studies <<

Monkeys use stone tools.

If by monkeys, you mean Catarrhines belonging to the Hominidae clade, then you would be right. However, only monkeys belonging to genus homo made and used napped flint stone tools. You might want to actually read the article rather than just tossing out a pithy rejoinder.

Incorrect dates, I reject this dating methodology.

The fact of the dates and the fact that the technology is sound don't really care about klutedavid's acceptance or rejection.

Since I have no date for the origin of mankind, tell me how any date could predate

Don't be coy. When do you think that humans first showed up in the Middle East?
my unknown date?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,308
9,097
65
✟432,635.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof. Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof. Since evolution can't be proven then its not,a fact.

Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA. Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close. Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof. But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,131
5,081
✟325,023.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof. Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof. Since evolution can't be proven then its not,a fact.

Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA. Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close. Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof. But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.

Of course they will be relative close, the main issue is there is the genetic drift, mutations that have acumulated on both the human and monkey DNA since the split, it's why say with DNA comparisons you can get anywhere from 5% to 95% simularities with chimpanzee's, because line up the DNA and a single added pair can throw the entire strand out of alignment, so you look at the encoding areas, but given the drift they still line up and beyond anything that would be random. Scientists understand these things and look at how they work out.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof.

For the 5th time, Science - all of science, doesn't deal in proof.

Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof. Since evolution can't be proven then its not,a fact.

Stephen J. Gould answered this objection 30+ years ago.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>>
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA.

This is so vague as to hardly be a coherent though, much less a fact.
- Humans are monkeys in the we, and our fellow apes, are members of the clade Catarrhini. In light of that fact, your assertions makes no sense.
- Humans and our fellow Catarrhines all have DNA based on the same 4 neucleotides and comprised of the same 64 codons which produce the same 20 amino acids. In light of that fact, your assertion makes no sense.
- No two humans have exactly the same DNA so we certainly wouldn't expect a human and any Catarrhini to have exactly the same DNA. In light of that fact, your assertion elicits a "what's your point?".

Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close.

This makes even less sense. What the heck does "the ERV insertion is relatively close" even mean?

Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof. But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.

Your problem, as I have pointed out before, is your educational background which has left you woefully unprepared to have a scientific discussion using scientific language. Your thinking is too wedded to apologetics for you to think scientifically. Read the excerpt from Gould above. I'd recommend reading the whole essay if you want to be able to communicate more effectively on the topics that are being discussed.
 
Upvote 0

JonFromMinnesota

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
2,171
1,608
Minnesota
✟60,266.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof. Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof.

Proof is only used in mathematics. If we want to say 'evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt' that would be an accurate thing to say because the evidence is so overwhelming. Evolution is called a fact because it is. The theory of evolution is an explanation for those facts.

Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA

Here is a fact, you and your parents DNA is not 100% identical but we can analyze the similarities and conclude who your parents are....just as we can analyze DNA to see how closely related species are to eachother.

Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close

What do you mean?

Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof

ERVs are inherited. We observe that 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. This is a slam dunk for evolution. "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt". But nothing is 100% proven but the evidence is so overwhelming, that we can conclude that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. New evidence could always overturn it but evolution has passed every single falsifiable test it has faced.

But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.

You need to get off this obsession of "proven". Nothing in science is 100% proven. We rely on following evidence to its logical conclusion. Gravity is not proven, germ theory of disease is not proven, atomic theory is not proven but they all have overwhelming evidence.
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
96
✟21,415.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof. Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof. Since evolution can't be proven then its not,a fact.

Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA. Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close. Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof. But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.

You suffer from some horrid misunderstandings...

Here's a fact.......when we take a measured volume of air and have a person breathe it in and then exhale afterwards, we find that there is a decreased level of oxygen in that expelled air. That's a fact...a provisional 'truth', because every time we measure that phenomenon, we get a similar result......there is less oxygen present when someone breathes out, than when they breathe in.

Here's the theory related to that (actually an hypothesis, but the example still serves).....humans extract oxygen from the air during respiration. Now, that theory is tentative. It is not "proven", as is the case for every hypothesis and theory in science! Someone may find an alternative explanation for why that oxygen level changes that doesn't involve extraction during respiration, so our understanding holds until that time.

Facts are what we observe. Theories provide explanations for those facts. Both are tentative.

Are you getting this.....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0