Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[AV1611VET]

1044 posts.

So much for "final clarification."

 

[SteveB28]

And if scientists can't take the same ingredients required for life and reproduce it ?

Juvenile tripe......this is what you people are reduced to, isn't it? You can't construct mature arguments to counter the wealth of scientific data, so you resort to the approach of a third grader....!

'Scientists can't take the ingredients for a volcano, so they can't happen!'

'Scientists can't make an ongoing nuclear fusion, so the sun doesn't work!'

Grow up....!

 

[rjs330]

Have you not been paying attention? Species don't share 203,000 ERVs because they are merely similar. They share them because they are related. Do we need to give you the Little Golden Book version to help you understand?



You're still conflating human technology with biology. Biologically we are much more similar to chimpanzees than we are different.

Once,again you assume they are related despite the major differences. Once again it's evidence of common design,from an intelligent designer.

 

[rjs330]

"Similarities"...????

There are over 200,000 of those IDENTICAL LOCATIONS, in a genome containing 3 BILLION possible location sites!

The probability of all of those insertions lining up with a 99.98% level of accuracy is approximately 1:9x10^13...!!

In other words, for all practical purposes, it's virtually impossible!

The ONLY viable explanation is that both ourselves and chimpanzees have a common genetic link. It is through that link that these insertion remnants have been passed down.

It is the same process by which we can be 99% sure that you are your father's son.....!

Still,an assumption. Kind,of interesting how you will use odds for this but completely dismiss the odds of evolution being able to happen.

 

[SteveB28]

Once,again you assume they are related despite the major differences. Once again it's evidence of common design,from an intelligent designer.

What "major" differences......??

That there is a difference in intelligence levels? You do realise that, since the 'split' from our common ancestor, that the lines that have culminated in Hominds and Pans have continued to undergo evolutionary change......!?

 

[SteveB28]

Still,an assumption. Kind,of interesting how you will use odds for this but completely dismiss the odds of evolution being able to happen.

What assumptions...?? We can examine the genomes...! We can count those common insertions points...! There is nothing to "assume", the evidence is right there....!

And the "odds" of evolution happening is 100%! Even you befuddled people accept that evolution occurs.....its just that you cannot see that if we can negotiate one step at a time, we can also climb a flight of stairs, given enough time.......

Just give up...........one stupid comment after another just makes you look embarrassing......

 

[rjs330]

Juvenile tripe......this is what you people are reduced to, isn't it? You can't construct mature arguments to counter the wealth of scientific data, so you resort to the approach of a third grader....!

'Scientists can't take the ingredients for a volcano, so they can't happen!'

'Scientists can't make an ongoing nuclear fusion, so the sun doesn't work!'

Grow up....!

But we can see the sun working and we can prove it works. We can't see evolution at work coming from a common ancestor.

 

[SteveB28]

But we can see the sun working and we can prove it works. We can't see evolution at work coming from a common ancestor.

Oh, no, no, no.......we "ASSUME" it works, don't we....!? We "ASSUME" that nuclear fusion is taking place, don't we? After all, it could be those "intelligent design" solar pixies that are producing all the heat and light.....!




.

 

[SteveB28]

But we can see the sun working and we can prove it works. We can't see evolution at work coming from a common ancestor.

And, as usual, you are quite wrong. We have evidence of "evolution at work" in both the laboratory and in the field, in real time....!

 

[4x4toy]

It wouldn't make any difference. Even if they did succeed, God's creative involvement in the experiment on the same footing as the original creation of life could not be ruled out. ID is a non-falsifiable proposition.

Juvenile tripe......this is what you people are reduced to, isn't it? You can't construct mature arguments to counter the wealth of scientific data, so you resort to the approach of a third grader....!

'Scientists can't take the ingredients for a volcano, so they can't happen!'

'Scientists can't make an ongoing nuclear fusion, so the sun doesn't work!'

Grow up....!

So you have the answers , school me about how life began and evolved ?

 

[SteveB28]

But we can see the sun working and we can prove it works. We can't see evolution at work coming from a common ancestor.

You know what else we don't see? We don't see the killer actually shoot the victim through the heart. But, what we do see is a man fleeing alone, smoking gun in his hand, blood from the victim on his clothes, a freshly killed victim in his room, the victim's wallet in the killer's pocket and a threatening email on his computer.

But I suppose you would let him go.....! After all, what does EVIDENCE count for in your warped little world...?



.

 

[SteveB28]

So you have the answers , school me about how life began and evolved ?

No, I am not a religious person, so I don't claim to have all the answers....!

Take careful note....in your world you probably don't come across much honesty.........the honest answer is I/we don't know how life first arose.

Did you get that...? We. Don't. Know.

But, we will continue to try to find out. There are some very tentative hypotheses, but none of these are close to being accepted as a theory. The only related statement we can make with some confidence is that there was a time when no life existed and now there is. And that that life is very much tied to the natural process extant on this planet. That being the case, it is highly likely that some natural process was involved in the origin of life.

The second part of your query about how life evolved is one that we answer with much more confidence..........through the twin processes of imperfect reproduction (mutation) and the mathematically based filter of natural selection.

 

[Speedwell]

So you have the answers , school me about how life began and evolved ?

How life began is still an open question. My point was, that if scientists made life in a lab, God could involve himself in the experiment in the same way he involved himself in the original event and we wouldn't be any the wiser.

 

[Church2u2]

The last common ancestor of humans and our fellow Catarrhines (colloquially known as monkeys) lived almost 30 million years ago. There has been a lot of evolution in the Hominid (colloquially known as apes) and Hominin (Australopithecine and Homo) lineages since then.
http://www.timetree.org/search/pairwise/rhesus monkey/homo sapiens

Rhesus monkey

Macaca mulatta


human
Homo sapiens

29.1 Million Years Ago​

Well I'm still not accepting that but I will look into the subject further.

 

[USincognito]

Once,again you assume...

Once again, you keep using that word as if it were magic. It's not. You're not actually addressing the evidence.

...they are related despite the major differences.

Red herring. We're talking about a specific issue here - 203,000 ERVs shared by humans and chimpanzees. You need to actually address that particular fact.

Once again it's evidence of common design,from an intelligent designer.

It's very dishonest to keep repeating things as if they haven't been addressed repeatedly.
>> As has been pointed out numerous times, the problem with "common design" is that it's an ad hoc proposition that lacks predictive or explanatory power and cannot be falsified thus rendering it unscientific. You would also need to explain things like:
- Why humans and chimpanzees share 203,000 ERVs
- Why all primates, including humans, share a broken GULO gene.
- Why whales have a broken gene package for hind leg development and develop hind limb buds in utero. <<

I posted that an hour before you posted your comment. I also responded to one of your posts earlier today.
>> Ah, the ad hoc "common design" fallacy. Tell us rjs, if God used common design, how do we falsify that proposition? In order to be scientific we need a potential falsification. I can think of thousands of potential falsifications for common descent, but I can't think of any for common design because it's ad hoc and can explain everything.

Also, in order to be scientific, it needs have explanatory power beyond childishly obvious assertions. For instance you need to explain why God inserted 203,000 endogenous retroviruses into the human and chimp genomes in such a way that mimics common ancestry. You also need to explain why all primates have a broken GULO gene that is broken in the exact same way. You need to explain why placental mammals have gene remnants for yolk sac production. You need to explain why whales have a broken gene package for hind leg development and why embryonic whales develop hind limb buds in utero, etc. etc. etc. <<

It's a very dishonest tactic to pretend that issues have not been addressed previously and to keep raising them.

 

[USincognito]

Well I'm still not accepting that but I will look into the subject further.

All I, personally, ask is that you fairly evaluate all the information. Thank you for doing so.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Well I'm still not accepting that but I will look into the subject further.

If you're serious about learning, "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book to introduce you to the subject.

 

[4x4toy]

No, I am not a religious person, so I don't claim to have all the answers....!

Take careful note....in your world you probably don't come across much honesty.........the honest answer is I/we don't know how life first arose.

Did you get that...? We. Don't. Know.

But, we will continue to try to find out. There are some very tentative hypotheses, but none of these are close to being accepted as a theory. The only related statement we can make with some confidence is that there was a time when no life existed and now there is. And that that life is very much tied to the natural process extant on this planet. That being the case, it is highly likely that some natural process was involved in the origin of life.

The second part of your query about how life evolved is one that we answer with much more confidence..........through the twin processes of imperfect reproduction (mutation) and the mathematically based filter of natural selection.

Thank you Steve for a civil answer and here's my reply . The only person I know who is honest is myself to myself and I try to be . I was brought up in hell and learned to take care of myself and provide for myself , I was as Atheist and anti-Christian as they come and spouted evolution at every chance . But a man prayed for me even though I despised him while he prayed . A few months later I began to think about God , religion , Christians and why I thought myself so superior to them . At the time I was running 5 miles a day , had a good job and family , every thing good except I began to feel that void and emptiness that thrill seeking or any other thing could fill .. Then one day it dawned on me that Jesus was who he said he was , I thought for an instant about the things I would have to give up and in the next instant I knew I could not live a lie knowing the truth , then confessed Jesus as my Lord , a very profound spiritual awakening and experience .. I've seen lots of supernatural happenings , healing , prophesy , gifts of the Spirit and concerning evolution I realized for the first time the link is missing and that chart I had been shown in school of monkey to man progression was made up without fact I actually became mad . We both go by faith as far as I can tell but I've seen both sides now with personal testimony myself of Jesus .. Turns out all the true Christians were right who stood strong in spite of my disrespect . Peace Bro ..

 

[Radrook]

As has been pointed out numerous times, the problem with "common design" is that it's an ad hoc proposition that lacks predictive or explanatory power and cannot be falsified thus rendering it unscientific. You would also need to explain things like:
- Why humans and chimpanzees share 203,000 ERVs
- Why all primates, including humans, share a broken GULO gene.
- Why whales have a broken gene package for hind leg development and develop hind limb buds in utero.



Soylent Green is people



Actually evolution got started some time after abiogenesis, if that was the source of the origin of life. It would have to have gotten to the point where it was reproducing and passing along DNA to offspring before evolution kicks in.

Pointing things out numerous times means little if the thing pointed out is an unwarranted debatable conclusion based more on wishful thinking than irrefutable science:

Identical Broken Gemes prove what?



To argue that the same broken genes in man and chimpanzee are good evidence of relationship certainly sounds logical – until you discover that broken vitamin C genes are also found in creatures such as guinea pigs and bats. So far we have not found any evolutionist who wants to claim common Vitamin C mutations must mean man ascended from guinea pigs or bats!



....Ascribing something to a “common ancestor” that no longer exists is a common evolutionary ploy to explain a patchy distribution of a gene, but it is really just wishful thinking to fit an already held belief in evolution

http://askjohnmackay.com/vitamin-c-gene-humans-apes-same-broken-gene-prove-evolution/

In short, that idea has been unceremoniousluy debunked!

As demonstrated in this report, the GULO region is clearly chromatin repressed in a heritable fashion and not transcriptionally active. Based on the current state of genomic information presented in this report, the bulk of evidence indicates that the human GULO gene is pseudogenized via deletions occurring as a result of unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. These exon deletion events are taxonomically restricted in humans and in each of the different ape species tested. And in combination with an extreme lack of sequence similarity over the entire GULO locus, utterly negate the idea of macroevolutionary common ancestry.

Here is more wishful thinking:

Whales had Legs?

 

[USincognito]

If you're serious about learning, "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book to introduce you to the subject.

Some folks just can't cotton to reading anything by Dawkins. I'd recommend Finding Your Inner Fish, since it deals specifically with why humans are still fish and monkeys.