Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[MasonP]

Present this evidence.

To do that he would need to show you his brain because that's where his God is.

 

[USincognito]

Is it really a debate? Let those that believe their family tree includes an ape believe that. There's no proof. But when they have faith their line was a former primate so be it.

Thank you for your, um, "contribution" to the discussion. Just for the record, humans are both apes and primates so, axiomatically, every human including you is an ape and a primate.

 

[USincognito]

Science doesn't deal with proof but evidence.
I remember an old program featuring Richard Dawkins. He was trying to explain the evolution of humans from apes. There was a tree chart on the wall behind him showing the stages from ape to man. He points to this blank line amid all the other lines that were labeled implying a graduation of the species from ape to human. He says that blank line is the ancestor that tied it all together.
But there's nothing there. Which is pointed out to him by the person to whom he is speaking. Yes, he says, but that's what we believe was the link that happened making it possible for todays humans to exist.

It was great.

Have you ever heard of genetics?

 

[USincognito]

No debate? I thought that's what we were doing. Its amazing the amount of assumption and supposition in evolution. You have your so called evidence and assume it shows evolution.

This vacuous verbiage might impress the rubes in your Sunday School class, but you're dealing with actual scientists and laymen who are tremendously interested in science. You're going to need to present actual evidence rather than rhetoric.

You suppose it shows evolution when you still can't run an experiment where a creature turns into another creature. Why, because it's already occured according to,evolution. Yet no observation has occurred.

I believe you have been asked previously to provide a hypothetical example of this. As I noted in an earlier reply, you appear to think that evolution is Pokemon. I'd still appreciate you providing a hypothetical, but just FYI:
- Populations evolve, not individuals.
- Descendants never stop being what their ancestors were.
- An extant population evolving into another extant population (or extinct population) would falsify evolution.

 

[USincognito]

That's not evolution as we are expected to believe. We are expected to believe that all living things came from one thing. Thus one thing changes into something it was not from the beginning. What was a spider before it was a spider and what is a spider evolving into?

Actually you're not expected to "believe" anything. That's a common misconception. The body of evidence exists whether anyone - especially laymen who don't know they're talking about - accepts it or not. And yes, speciation is evolution. Common ancestry is the byproduct of speciation.

As far as your spider question goes, it's a perfect example of how you have been fed unscientific garbage by professional Creationists. Spider is an order. Orders are comprised of families, genera and species. So what was the spider before it was a spider? It was a spider.

The order of spiders is within the class Arachnidae which includes scorpions and ticks as well. So what was the spider before it became a spider? A basal arachnid. One branch leading to ticks, one to scorpions and one to spiders.

Arachnids belong to the phylum Arthropoda - invertebrates with jointed limbs. That includes arachnids, crustaceans, insects and trilobites. So what was the spider before it was a spider and an arachnid? It was a basal arthropod. One branch leading to arachnids, one to crustaceans, one to insects and one to trilobites.

 

[ScottA]

Present this evidence.

I am.

 

[KWCrazy]

Every single test that evolution has ever faced it has passed with flying colors.

Except when they eradiated fruit flies over thousands of generation hoping that some benevolent mutation would advance the species; only to find that it did not. In fact, increased complexity via benevolent mutations remains an unproven must-be-so that evolutionists declare to be fact though they cannot replicate it.

Believe as you will, God created you in His image. You might WISH you came from monkeys, but no such luck.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Except when they eradiated fruit flies over thousands of generation hoping that some benevolent mutation would advance the species; only to find that it did not

Which experiment are you talking about? Fruit flies are used a lot in labs. Sounds like you're just making things up which wouldn't surprise me with my previous conversations with you.

In fact, increased complexity via benevolent mutations remains an unproven must-be-so that evolutionists declare to be fact though they cannot replicate it.

There have been many experiments demonstrating this very thing. Richard Lenski had a 25 year running experiment. It's probably one of the more famous evolutionary studies done. You're literally just making things up KW. Why do you do that? Is it to protect your beliefs?

God created you in His image

Evidence?

You might WISH you came from monkeys, but no such luck.

Nobody came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor. How many times are you going to have to be corrected on this before you find an ounce of intellectual honesty? Anyway, I don't wish for anything. I care about what is true and the evidence is overwhelming for common ancestry. It doesn't matter if I wish this to be so or not. Reality doesn't care what I wish for.

 

[USincognito]

Except when they eradiated fruit flies over thousands of generation hoping that some benevolent mutation would advance the species; only to find that it did not.

Creationist urban legend. The irradiation experiments with fruit flies done by Hermann Muller were not meant to produce beneficial mutations. They were done to test the effect of radiation on genes - which were not well understood at the time.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1927_Muller.php

In fact, increased complexity via benevolent mutations remains an unproven must-be-so that evolutionists declare to be fact though they cannot replicate it.

"Increased complexity" "benevolent mutations" "unproven" Oh my...

Believe as you will, God created you in His image. You might WISH you came from monkeys, but no such luck.

Given how badly you butcher the science, it's better if you stick with the preaching and appeals to emotion like this.

 

[KWCrazy]

Which experiment are you talking about? Fruit flies are used a lot in labs. Sounds like you're just making things up which wouldn't surprise me with my previous conversations with you.

I thought you were supposed to be the educated one. You accuse me of lying because of your ignorance of the topic? Do you have any idea how many times these experiments were mentioned along this topic?
"The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution." source
That's the intent; to force evolution via mutation using generations of fruit flies.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates

Since the early 1900s, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred in laboratories across the globe.

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

Are you really so uninformed as to not be aware of experiments that have gone on for a century with the same goal; forcing observable evolution? Or are you simply being dishonest? You accused me of making something up that at least 90% of the people in this forum are certainly aware. For this you should apologize.

There have been many experiments demonstrating this very thing. Richard Lenski had a 25 year running experiment. It's probably one of the more famous evolutionary studies done.

Lenski's work involves bacteria. Bacteria are the garbage eaters of the planet. They are designed specifically for that intent.

You're literally just making things up KW.

I demonstrated your statement to be a lie. Now you need to apologize for libeling me and falsely accusing me of lying because you lacked knowledge of a commonly known series of experiments.

Evidence?

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Nobody came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor. How many times are you going to have to be corrected on this before you find an ounce of intellectual honesty?

Ever read the title of the thread in which you are posting? Who's the one lacking in intellectual honesty????
Do not post to me until you apologize.

 

[rjs330]

Every individual spider was always a spider. The spider species you're looking at was something else -- a different spider, and before that, some other arthropod.


Quite true. Humans today are not identical to humans a thousand years ago, or ten thousand years ago. Species change constantly. The only reason we have the illusion that a species is a constant "thing" is that we observe the over such short time periods.

But as long as we're demanding that people answer our questions, how about you answer my questions to you about Biblical interpretation. It sure seemed like you wanted to shift from talking about evolution to talking about the Bible, but when I asked you about well-known Biblical scholars, you clammed up. Why?

It's nice to know you believe exactly. Like I do. A spider was always a spider a monkey was always a monkey and a human was always a human. Therefore there is no such thing as a common ancestor. If you go far enough back in time you will find a spider a monkey and a human each completely separate from each other. No common ancestor.

 

[KWCrazy]

No common ancestor.

Exactly. We have a common Creator.

 

[rjs330]

Every individual spider was always a spider. The spider species you're looking at was something else -- a different spider, and before that, some other arthropod.


Quite true. Humans today are not identical to humans a thousand years ago, or ten thousand years ago. Species change constantly. The only reason we have the illusion that a species is a constant "thing" is that we observe the over such short time periods.

But as long as we're demanding that people answer our questions, how about you answer my questions to you about Biblical interpretation. It sure seemed like you wanted to shift from talking about evolution to talking about the Bible, but when I asked you about well-known Biblical scholars, you clammed up. Why?

Ok I'll answer your question. The men you mention do not believe in the inerrant literal authority of the bible. I think their beliefs utterly ignore what the scripture says about itself. And their beliefs are dangerous because it gives fuel to those who refuse to,believe in the word of God. There are plenty of top,notch biblical scholars who go completely against these guys. Geisler being one of them.

 

[bhsmte]

I am.

You are?

 

[Astrophile]

Nobody came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor. How many times are you going to have to be corrected on this before you find an ounce of intellectual honesty? Anyway, I don't wish for anything. I care about what is true and the evidence is overwhelming for common ancestry. It doesn't matter if I wish this to be so or not. Reality doesn't care what I wish for.

It depends on what you mean by a monkey or an ape. G.G. Simpson pointed out a long time ago that if we could actually meet our common ancestor with chimpanzees, we should have no hesitation in calling it an ape, even though it did not belong to any living species or genus of ape. If we could meet our ancestors of 25 million years ago, we should probably call them monkeys, although, again, they did not belong to any living species or genus of monkey.

I can't imagine why anybody wants to make such a fuss about our being descended from apes or monkeys. What does it matter; it was all a long time ago. The fact remains that there is abundant evidence that we are descended from animals (that lived about 25 million years ago) that we should call monkeys if we could meet them.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Is this the one? He's explaining what common ancestry means and destroying the ridiculous "But why are there still chimpanzees?" strawman that creationists use.

The evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming, especially when we look at DNA. 99.9% of ERV insertions in the human genome are shared with chimpanzees. That is only possible if we share a common ancestor. We also have a large hominid fossil record. I'm not sure if the above video is the one your referring to. Perhaps the one you are talking about is the "Show me the evidence" lady, which Dawkins repeatedly shows her. It's not his fault she doesn't understand science.

No, that doesn't have him answering what that blank space means in matters of relationship.

 

[sfs]

It's nice to know you believe exactly. Like I do. A spider was always a spider a monkey was always a monkey and a human was always a human. Therefore there is no such thing as a common ancestor. If you go far enough back in time you will find a spider a monkey and a human each completely separate from each other. No common ancestor.

Complete misreading of my post, and patently untrue to boot.

 

[sfs]

Ok I'll answer your question. The men you mention do not believe in the inerrant literal authority of the bible. I think their beliefs utterly ignore what the scripture says about itself.

They, who are both devout Christians (and in some cases staunch evangelicals) and much more knowledgeable about the Bible than yourself, disagree with you. They disagree with you about what the Bible says about itself and they disagree with you about how the Bible works. My point is that you cannot claim any special authority for interpreting the Bible correctly based on your college degree.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

No, that doesn't have him answering what that blank space means in matters of relationship.

I wanted to also add that in that chart there is missing the direct ancestor of all those major primates pictured. There's no so called grandparent fossil, my words, for the modern orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee. Those apes did not appear out of nowhere. And today's human is not like any ape today so there is also no transition species or evidence of that hairy ape unto the human being today. That is what is missing in Dawkins chart. Having graphs that lead from apes to a female human isn't evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There's no so called grandparent fossil, my words, for the modern orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee. Those apes did not appear out of nowhere. And today's human is not like any ape today so there is also no transition species or evidence of that hairy ape unto the human being today. That is what is missing in Dawkins chart. Having graphs that lead from apes to a female human isn't evidence.

Don't worry, we have the fossils.

Even if the fossil evidence didn't exist, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly true when looking at DNA.