The evidence for Evolution.

[DogmaHunter]

Oh I understand the theory better than you

If you have shown anything, it certainly is the very opposite of that.

, that's why you won't show me or even try to show me these claimed common ancestors that are missing on every single evolutionary tree

Identification is not required to infer their existance.
Just like we don't require being able to identify your biological parents to be able to determine that you and your siblings share them as parents.

All we require for that determination are DNA samples from both you and your siblings.
Even you and your siblings don't even need to know you are siblings. The DNA can even be anonymous. And yet, purely by comparing your collective DNA, we can determine you share the same parents.

, because they don't exist and you know it.

No... rather, on the count that they are "missing". Just like your parents are missing in the above example.

Your ad hominem attacks simply show you lack any science to back up your fantasy.

It's not an ad hominim to point out incredibly rookie mistakes like "chimps are supposed human ancestors".

Anyone who had just an iota of education in evolutionary biology would facepalm at such a comment.

To call out your ignorance on the matter, is not an ad hominim.


I also note that you're not even bothering to retract it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mammals and primates are not species, is a broad all inclusive catagory.

Never said otherwise.

Primates are mammals, yet you don't confuse them with cats.

Why would I? Primates and cats are different lineages (with common mammalian ancestors).

Cats are mammals to, yet you split them just fine.

Yes, cats are mammals. So are dogs.
But dogs aren't cats.

Dogs and cats share mammalian ancestors.

No, your just trying to equate both being mammals means something

It does mean something... But I get it might be hard to understand what exactly it means, for someone who thinks humans evolved from chimpanzee's.

Then you won't mind showing me the common ancestor that split one to ape one to human?

Humans ARE apes. Humans and apes aren't different lineages.

Which mean nothing. If I say my mammal died today what am I talking about?

You could be talking about your husband, your sibling, your cat, your dog, your child...
But not your parrot or your goldfish.

Would be a weird thing to say though.

And yet despite 50 at every birth over let's say 150,000 years or 7.5 million, we are still the same species.

We aren't, actually.

But it doesn't, our English language is composed of French, Latin, and other languages. It is simple phonetic differences, and is manmade, but yet if we were to discuss genetics and dogs.....

English is a germanic language, not a roman language.
It belongs to the same family as german, dutch, etc.

English doesn't derive from latin, like the roman languages do.
The occasional borrowed word, not withstanding.

Didn't you learn this in school, back in the days?


It seems you have your work cut out for you. You got a lot of reading up to do.

 

[Jimmy D]

I thought I was on your ignore list, at least be man enough to follow through with your childish actions.

I found it quite annoying seeing responses to posts that weren't there so everyone came off ignore.

Anyway, as I was saying, are these two different sub species?

Obviously they aren't, seeing as they're siblings. So why do you insist that humans with different skin clour have to be? I just don't get it.

 

[AirPo]

That is a big if.

No, this is a big if.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

XD you are telling someone to man up and be a child, wow.

Just to be a man of their word. But that's typical of him, say one thing and do another. Just as if you put me on your ignore list I'd expect you to be woman enough to abide by your decision. But I guess from your response you think it's ok to say one thing and do another. That's what evolution has done to you, so used to double talk you see no contradiction.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I found it quite annoying seeing responses to posts that weren't there so everyone came off ignore.

Anyway, as I was saying, are these two different sub species?

Obviously they aren't, seeing as they're siblings. So why do you insist that humans with different skin clour have to be? I just don't get it.

Ok, we will play this game, because last I knew an Asian doesn't give birth to a African, unless one of the parents is an African. Also there are genetic differences between an Asian and an African, while if you genetically typed those kittens, only a tiny variability would show (such as one gets between brother and sister), yet one can type any race and know without a doubt which race it came from. Your example reflects reality not at all. You know this, so why the straw man argument to begin with?

If I am a detective and find DNA, I can immediately narrow my search parameters to African, Asian, Caucasian, etc from a quick and simple typing. You are quite aware of this, which is why I said I'll play the game, because a game is all this is. Just as through typing I could immediately narrow kittens down to Persian, Egyptian, etc.

Unlike you I am not basing my classification on skin color, but genetics, skin color just happens to reflect those genetics in humans, but has in reality nothing to do with anything. Your equating black and white as if that's why I am doing it, not me. I said nothing about a persons skin color, just their genetic race of Asian or African.

Besides, many siblings have black and blond hair, so why would I assume hair color -as in those kittens, has anything to do with it? If I wanted to play the race card, I'd bet both of those kittens skin is the same color, so don't try to make this into an issue of skin color when that was never implied from the start. I am rather offended you are trying to make this into an issue of black and white instead of genetics.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ok, we will play this game, because last I knew an Asian doesn't give birth to a African

Does the theory of evolution say it does? Why are you saying this?

Also there are genetic differences between an Asian and an African, while if you genetically typed those kittens, only a tiny variability would show

And only a "tiny variability would show" with two people, regardless of ethnic background.

The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

yet one can type any race and know without a doubt which race it came from. Your example reflects reality not at all. You know this, so why the straw man argument to begin with?

Just as you could you can look at the cat's genome and discover the colour of it's fur. Doesn't make it a different sub species does it?

Anyway, I'll break it down for you...

A) Human with different ethnic backgrounds are not classified as different sub species whether you like it or not. There are valid reasons why.

B) If they were classed as different subspecies what difference would it make to the idea of common descent or whatever you're arguing against.

C) It's basically a semantic argument, and a poor one at that.

 

[Jimmy D]

But that's typical of him, say one thing and do another.

Why is that typical of me?

 

[Jimmy D]

last I knew an Asian doesn't give birth to a African, unless one of the parents is an African.

Don't you believe that we all come from Noah's family? Would that mean a Middle Eastern person would have given birth to an African, an Asian, a Northern European a South American, an Aborigine, an Inuit, Polynesians, Native americans, Latinos, Pygmies etc etc.

I wouldn't want to misrepresent you though, maybe you could explain your views.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Does the theory of evolution say it does? Why are you saying this?

Oh please. You show me black and white kittens then ask if they are subspecies. But I notice you didn't show me a Persian and Egyptian breed and ask me that......

And only a "tiny variability would show" with two people, regardless of ethnic background.

And yet detectives can immediately tell if a sample DNA is from an Asian or African without knowing if it came from an Asian or an African....

The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

And yet I can have my DNA tested and they will be able to tell me what my origins were. That we are mixed to a point of becoming indistinguishable because of our transportation technology. Your engaging in straw man tactics and know it, since I could test your DNA and rule out if you we re African without ever having seen you. You know this too.

Just as you could you can look at the cat's genome and discover the colour of it's fur. Doesn't make it a different sub species does it?

But I'm not the one trying to make this about color, you are. But I can sure look at that genome and know if it's a Persian cat or an Egyptian cat, now can't I?

Anyway, I'll break it down for you...

A) Human with different ethnic backgrounds are not classified as different sub species whether you like it or not. There are valid reasons why.

Yes, the reasons are they place us above the animals and don't do for us what they do for every other species.....

B) If they were classed as different subspecies what difference would it make to the idea of common descent or whatever you're arguing against.

Because in the fossil record you classify those subspecies as separate species, leading you to the false belief in evolution of species into other species.

C) It's basically a semantic argument, and a poor one at that.

Agreed, your argument was a poor one at that, trying to equate genetics with black and white kittens. But I bet one simple DNA test would of told me those kittens were of the same subspecies............ or if one was Persian and the other Egyptian even if I had never seen them...... my argument is blind, your relies on the color of ones skin.....

Just give up your futile line of argument, you know how rediculous it is and can't defeat genetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you believe that we all come from Noah's family? Would that mean a Middle Eastern person would have given birth to an African, an Asian, a Northern European a South American, an Aborigine, an Inuit, Polynesians, Native americans, Latinos, Pygmies etc etc.

I wouldn't want to misrepresent you though, maybe you could explain your views.

QV please: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Genetic variation, classification and 'race' - Nature Genetics

New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift.

Just as with animals, imagine that. But you all keep on with your pseudoscientific arguments.

Nowadays I can easily have my ancestors traced with a simple inexpensive test. Don't try to fool people into believing the difference is so slight one can not tell. You know better than to even attempt this, or should know better. That ancestors may not be able to say where they came from because of transportation technology, but it will immediately tell me what racial backgrounds it contains.

Somdifferent in reality we now use it to type for genetic diseases based upon that persons race. Fool yourself if you like, just don't try to fool others.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Don't you believe that we all come from Noah's family? Would that mean a Middle Eastern person would have given birth to an African, an Asian, a Northern European a South American, an Aborigine, an Inuit, Polynesians, Native americans, Latinos, Pygmies etc etc.

I wouldn't want to misrepresent you though, maybe you could explain your views.

But only you are ignoring the eight people, and the fact that the genome is degrading, not becoming better.... what was once perfect is now 98% junk.

And there you go, ignoring the over 100 breeds of dogs from one population of grey wolves. Just so you can ignore that inherent genetic variability that already exists in the genome for your fantasy of how variation occurs.

Only you see a problem with a dozen races while over 100 breeds exist in front of your nose from one stock, not eight.

 

[Jimmy D]

But only you are ignoring the eight people, and the fact that the genome is degrading, not becoming better.... what was once perfect is now 98% junk.

And there you go, ignoring the over 100 breeds of dogs from one population of grey wolves. Just so you can ignore that inherent genetic variability that already exists in the genome for your fantasy of how variation occurs.

Only you see a problem with a dozen races while over 100 breeds exist in front of your nose from one stock, not eight.

So Asians did come from middle easterns? Why do you keep insisting that one race doesn't come from another? Can you not see the inconsistency?

Have you got any evidence of the perfect genome that produces all the different races or is it just another adhoc explanation? What is the rate of the decay for example? When did it finish degrading, when all the different ethnic groups were established? I believe DNA from ancient remains have been studied, do the findings reflect your hypothesis?

(Yes, I am ignoring dogs, they have nothing to do with it).

 

[Jimmy D]

New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift.

Just as with animals, imagine that. But you all keep on with your pseudoscientific arguments.

But I don't disagree with any of that that. What exactly have I said that's pseudoscientific?

By the way, it goes on to say.....

Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations.

A bit like you might expect to see if you accept modern scientific ideas of human distribution and development. Which I do.

 

[Jimmy D]

Nowadays I can easily have my ancestors traced with a simple inexpensive test. Don't try to fool people into believing the difference is so slight one can not tell.

I didn't say that, don't lie.

You know better than to even attempt this, or should know better. That ancestors may not be able to say where they came from because of transportation technology, but it will immediately tell me what racial backgrounds it contains.

I never said it didn't, you're inventing things to argue against.

Somdifferent in reality we now use it to type for genetic diseases based upon that persons race. Fool yourself if you like, just don't try to fool others.

I'm aware of that thanks, I never said otherwise.

You're obviously not very good at understanding what people are saying so I'll spell it out for you again.

Genetic variation in the human race does not differ enough to warrant calling different groups sub-species.

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh please. You show me black and white kittens then ask if they are subspecies. But I notice you didn't show me a Persian and Egyptian breed and ask me that......

Nothing to do with cats.

Does the theory of evolution say an asian will give birth to an african or not?

No, no it doesn't.

So stop repeating your inane strawman.

And yet detectives can immediately tell if a sample DNA is from an Asian or African without knowing if it came from an Asian or an African....

No one said they couldn't.

Another strawman.

And yet I can have my DNA tested and they will be able to tell me what my origins were. That we are mixed to a point of becoming indistinguishable because of our transportation technology. Your engaging in straw man tactics and know it, since I could test your DNA and rule out if you we re African without ever having seen you. You know this too.

No one is saying you can't. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO GENETIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ETHNIC GROUPS.

But I'm not the one trying to make this about color, you are. But I can sure look at that genome and know if it's a Persian cat or an Egyptian cat, now can't I?

I would expect so, I never said otherwise.

Yes, the reasons are they place us above the animals and don't do for us what they do for every other species...

Good grief, go and read some literature on the topic and see if that's the reason, you'll find you're wrong.... and it has no bearing on our understanding of human distribution and development, it's purely a semantic argument.

Because in the fossil record you classify those subspecies as separate species, leading you to the false belief in evolution of species into other species.

Nested hierarchies are determined by homologies not names. The names are irrelevant, similarities and differences between organisms and their distribution chronolgically and geographically are what's important.

Agreed, your argument was a poor one at that, trying to equate genetics with black and white kittens. But I bet one simple DNA test would of told me those kittens were of the same subspecies............ or if one was Persian and the other Egyptian even if I had never seen them...... my argument is blind, your relies on the color of ones skin.....

Just give up your futile line of argument, you know how rediculous it is and can't defeat genetics.

I'm starting to think that my point went completely over your head. I don't really disagree with what you've written there. What I was saying is that there can be variations within a population with out the need to start calling things different sub species.

Just as one cat is black, the other white, the other ginger they are still the same subspecies with minor variations, the same applies humans, that is all I'm saying.

 

[Jimmy D]

QV please: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah

Thanks AV.

 

[Aman777]

But only you are ignoring the eight people, and the fact that the genome is degrading, not becoming better.... what was once perfect is now 98% junk.

The eight people on the Ark were already married...BUT...their children had NO other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry. Like Cain on the first Earth, they married and produced children with the sons of God (prehistoric people) who descended from the common ancestor of Apes, on Adam's Earth Gen 6:4 and also after that on the present Earth. Gen 10:10

Noah's grandsons had some one Million sons of God (prehistoric people) to choose wives from and their descendants became today's Humans. Noah's great grandson was Nimrod, the builder of the FIRST Human city on this Earth. The Ark brought Adam's superior intelligence to this Planet of the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. It's like that ALL over our Universe. When we find liquid water, we will find life coming forth from Water as God commanded in Gen 1:20 God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

That is a big if.

Not for me since i understand Genesis which ONLY God, the Holy Spirit, could have possibly Authored at the time. He showed us of discoveries of Science which have not yet happened. A good example is the Scriptural fact that God made the first Heaven on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 and Lord God made other Heavens on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 The discovery that we do live in a Multiverse could be announced by scientists any day now.

Since everything God "creates" is an Eternal creation. (Their kinds) What does that tell you about the temporary "creations" of Lord God/Jesus? (His kinds)