Was Y-Chromosomal Adam a monkey?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you, my love. But we can be 100 sure, that there was a time, when there was no Spanish. Thus, the start of Spanish has certain borders in time.

His point is that where you draw that line, is completely arbitrary and out of convenience.

Go to England.
Take a an english text of today.
Put it next to an english text of 100 years ago.
And of 200 years ago.
And of 300 years ago.
400. 500. 1000. 1500.

You'll comprehend it less and less.
At some point, you'll say "this, I can no longer call english".

@Ophiolite 's point is that where YOU draw that line, will varry from where OTHERS draw that line.
And you seem to totally not comprehend why this is so.

Again, take that author from the 1500 year old text and put him in modern London. The contrast in language will be immense.
It won't be immense with an a brit from 100 years ago.

And, the crux of it.... if you would go back generation by generation, you'll find that every single generation speaks the same language as the generation that came right before that one.

That's kind of the thing with gradualism.


Or to put it graphically with that nice visual example, that even originated on this very forum I think:

Then speaking about Darwinism: humans are not animals, and animals are not humans.

Humans are animals just like humans are mammals.

We belong to the kingdom of animalia.

We sure aren't plants.....................

 

[joinfree]

why they found ape-like humans all over the place.

They are not using toilet paper?!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One thing you are missing on this (and your post #4) is that Genesis lists human creation as being entirely separate from that of the other animals and plants.

That's nice, but words in books are irrelevant to the actual evidence of reality.

"the Lord God formed man (Heb: adam) of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Gen 2.7

Either you believe that or you don't.

I believe the actual evidence over words in books.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does that preclude a designer/builder following a very similar design on an entirely different creative act?

No and neither does it preclude us living in the matrix or the universe and everything it contains being created last thursday, including our memories of having lived our entire lives.

But who cares. I follow the evidence.
If you wish to claim things contrary to the evidence, go right ahead, but I fail to see why I would want to waste energy over such exercises in futility.

 

[USincognito]

Does that preclude a designer/builder following a very similar design on an entirely different creative act?

The problem Dave is that your appeal to common design has to explain things that make sense with common ancestry, but not so much for common design. For instance:
- Why would the designer give humans and chimpanzees 203,000 shared endogenous retroviruses?
- Why would the designer give all Haplorhine primates including humans a shared broken GULO gene that normally synthesizes vitamin C?
- Why would the designer give whales a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development if their ancestors never walked on land?
- Why would the designer give all therian mammals (marsupials and placental mammals) non-functioning vitellogenin genes for egg yolk sac development if we don't lay eggs?

 

[inquiring mind]

I am a sincere! I am not a liar! My God of Love demands the Love! I love all!

Prepare yourself for more accusations of being ‘uneducated’ coupled with descriptives like ‘ignorance’ and ‘false dichotomy’ (that evolution doesn’t try to disprove a creator). But, when it’s all said and done most of them: 1) Believe Darwin over the Bible, and 2) Because they can see things happening in the short-term (micro evolution) they also surmise it happened in the long-term (macro evolution). Many will use that hypothesis, some deliberately (atheists) and some unaware (theistic evolution Christians), without conclusive proof mind you (always relying on the fallback that science doesn’t prove anything and yet any intelligent person would see it their way), to discredit the Bible and promote non-supernatural spontaeous generation, biogenesis, or some form of natural means only.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem Dave is that your appeal to common design has to explain things that make sense with common ancestry, but not so much for common design. For instance:
- Why would the designer give humans and chimpanzees 203,000 shared endogenous retroviruses?
- Why would the designer give all Haplorhine primates including humans a shared broken GULO gene that normally synthesizes vitamin C?
- Why would the designer give whales a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development if their ancestors never walked on land?
- Why would the designer give all therian mammals (marsupials and placental mammals) non-functioning vitellogenin genes for egg yolk sac development if we don't lay eggs?

Why, because he is mysterious and has a plan, obviously......

 

[devin553344]

They are not using toilet paper?!

Neither does my homeless brother-in-law. And he's human

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prepare yourself for more accusations of being ‘uneducated’ coupled with descriptives like ‘ignorance’ and ‘false dichotomy’ (that evolution doesn’t try to disprove a creator).

When one cannot even understand the implications of a continuum of gradual accumulation of changes, while trying to argue against a process like evolution, then words like "uneducated" and "ignorance" are extremely appropriate.

These are not insults. They are facts.

When someone is unaware of the core tenents of evolution, then one is ignorant and/or uneducated about evolution.


If I were to argue against christianity without even knowing about Jesus, wouldn't you call me ignorant and/or uneducated as well? How could you call me anything else?

But, when it’s all said and done most of them: 1) Believe Darwin over the Bible

Believe evidence over the bible.

2) Because they can see things happening in the short-term (micro evolution) they also surmise it happened in the long-term (macro evolution).

False. There's no assumption. It's a testable inference based on loads of evidence like phylogenies, biogeography, etc.

Many will use that hypothesis

It was a hypothesis when Darwin proposed it, some 200 years ago.
It's been a universally accepted, well-evidence, well-tested foundational theory of biology for many many years now.

without conclusive proof

Scientific theories never deal in "conclusive proof".

(always relying on the fallback that science doesn’t prove anything and yet any intelligent person would see it their way),

That's not a fallback. That's just a fact of how science is done. It ensures the ability to learn more and make progress. It's called intellectual honesty. Science wouldn't work otherwise.

to discredit the Bible

No scientific theory mentions the bible.
The only ones discrediting the bible/christianity here, are folks like you guys, who think words in books trump scientific theories.

You guys are like billboards for atheism.

and promote non-supernatural spontaeous generation, biogenesis, or some form of natural means only.

Why would any scientist promote any supernatural thing while there not being a shred of evidence for such things?

Scientists would be more then happy to include the "supernatural" in models. But only if the supernatural can
1. be demonstrated to exist
2. be shown to be playing an active role in whatever process is being modeled.


Good luck with that.

As it stands though, adding the supernatural to scientific knowledge would work out like this ('S' = the supernatural):

E = mc² + S

And when you work that equation out, to see the value of S, you end up with S = 0

 

[New Birth]

I'm going to be charitable and assume that the OP is rooted in ignorance of evolution and not a crude and poorly executed attempt to mock it.



False dichotomy.



There was no "very first person". No offspring is ever born so different from it's parents that it would be considered a different species. What actually happens is mutations occur in individuals and if they confer an advantage the spread through the population over time. When enough mutations have happened over enough time that the population no longer interbreeds with related populations, speciation has occurred. Think in terms of language. There never was a first Spanish speaker. That is no Latin speaking family one day gave birth to a child that spoke Spanish. What actually happened is over time Latin "mutated" and broke into individual languages of Italian, Spanish and French.



The biggest problem here is your assumption that Adam existed. There's zero evidence that Adam was a literal first and only human. That said, you are on the cusp of understanding monophyly. Simply put, descendant populations never stop being what their ancestors were. As an example, whales are still terrestrial tetrapods despite no longer living on land or having four legs. Mammals are still amniotes despite no longer laying eggs (at least Therians don't). In that way, despite the changes to the Homo lineage and to sapiens in particular, humans are still simians.

Bullet point version.

• Y Adam lived in a population of other humans that evolved from earlier Homo species.
• He just happened to be the last male from which every other male on earth is descended.
• No offspring is so different from the population that it would be a different species.
  
• You never stop being what your ancestors were so humans are, taxonomically, monkeys.

Typical Darwinist. So the age old question "Why are there still monkeys?" You first say there is no Adam then you say Adam "just happened to be the last male from which every other male on earth descended". That is the position of the creationist, yet not only males but all of mankind.
"No offspring is so different from the population that it would be a different species." Now you get it!

 

[Dave-W]

The problem Dave is that your appeal to common design has to explain things that make sense with common ancestry, but not so much for common design. For instance:
- Why would the designer give humans and chimpanzees 203,000 shared endogenous retroviruses?
- Why would the designer give all Haplorhine primates including humans a shared broken GULO gene that normally synthesizes vitamin C?
- Why would the designer give whales a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development if their ancestors never walked on land?
- Why would the designer give all therian mammals (marsupials and placental mammals) non-functioning vitellogenin genes for egg yolk sac development if we don't lay eggs?

Well - when we get to the end you can ask Him yourself.

 

[New Birth]

When one cannot even understand the implications of a continuum of gradual accumulation of changes, while trying to argue against a process like evolution, then words like "uneducated" and "ignorance" are extremely appropriate.

These are not insults. They are facts.

When someone is unaware of the core tenents of evolution, then one is ignorant and/or uneducated about evolution.


If I were to argue against christianity without even knowing about Jesus, wouldn't you call me ignorant and/or uneducated as well? How could you call me anything else?





Believe evidence over the bible.




False. There's no assumption. It's a testable inference based on loads of evidence like phylogenies, biogeography, etc.




It was a hypothesis when Darwin proposed it, some 200 years ago.
It's been a universally accepted, well-evidence, well-tested foundational theory of biology for many many years now.



Scientific theories never deal in "conclusive proof".




That's not a fallback. That's just a fact of how science is done. It ensures the ability to learn more and make progress. It's called intellectual honesty. Science wouldn't work otherwise.




No scientific theory mentions the bible.
The only ones discrediting the bible/christianity here, are folks like you guys, who think words in books trump scientific theories.

You guys are like billboards for atheism.



Why would any scientist promote any supernatural thing while there not being a shred of evidence for such things?

Scientists would be more then happy to include the "supernatural" in models. But only if the supernatural can
1. be demonstrated to exist
2. be shown to be playing an active role in whatever process is being modeled.


Good luck with that.

As it stands though, adding the supernatural to scientific knowledge would work out like this ('S' = the supernatural):

E = mc² + S

And when you work that equation out, to see the value of S, you end up with S = 0

You were going strong there for a minute but then you agreed that "Scientific theories never deal in "conclusive proof". I guess you could post a evolutionary textbook and your own statement would shred it.

 

[sfs]

Typical Darwinist. So the age old question "Why are there still monkeys?"

I know -- creationists really do ask dumb questions, don't they?

 

[Shemjaza]

You were going strong there for a minute but then you agreed that "Scientific theories never deal in "conclusive proof". I guess you could post a evolutionary textbook and your own statement would shred it.

The difference is that "proof" is a philosophical or mathematical concept, not a scientific one.

Evolution''s evidence demonstrates that it is true beyond all reasonable doubt, but it could still be demonstrated to be flawed or false if new evidence that falsified it was discovered.

 

[tas8831]

But Bible? Where is Adam's monkey-dad in the Bible?

Where are bacteria in the bible? Where is Uranus in the bible?

 

[joinfree]

Neither does my homeless brother-in-law. And he's human

If we can't or we do not want, somebody else cleans us. But no animal uses toilet paper.

 

[joinfree]

Evolution''s evidence demonstrates that it is true beyond all reasonable doubt

Please explain the expression "is true beyond all reasonable doubt"

 

[USincognito]

Typical Darwinist.

Jumping right in with an insult? I have a feeling this will not go well for you.

So the age old question "Why are there still monkeys?"

Is one of the most insipid questions one can ask. Creation Ministries International tells Creationists not to use it because it's such a bad argument.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com
So doesn't Answers In Genesis.
If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?

You first say there is no Adam then you say Adam "just happened to be the last male from which every other male on earth descended". That is the position of the creationist, yet not only males but all of mankind.

Try reading what I wrote again.
>> Y Adam lived in a population of other humans that evolved from earlier Homo species.
He just happened to be the last male from which every other male on earth is descended. <<
{bold for emphasis)

This is pretty simple population genetics. Not every man who lives will have children and of those who do have children some will only have daughters who will not pass on his Y Chromosome (since daughters get XX instead of XY). Over time all the descendants of all the other men living at the time of Y Adam will end because they won't have children or they will only have daughters. I have several examples in my own recent family. My mother's mother's father had two daughters and a son. The son died before he had any children so his Y chromosome went extinct. My dad two sons and neither of us have any children so his Y chromosome has and our Y chromosome will go extinct.

"No offspring is so different from the population that it would be a different species." Now you get it!

I do. But do you?

 

[devin553344]

If we can't or we do not want, somebody else cleans us. But no animal uses toilet paper.

That is interesting. To be more serious I must point out what was found thru Archeology: Human - Wikipedia

If you scroll down on the wikipedia article I just mentioned you will find what evidence has been found in connection with the ape-like humans and humans evolving in intelligence. There is an illustration of the hominin timeline and what is believed to be the evolution of science of the human. They started using tools in the hominin type of ape-like human, which by the way animals have been found to use tools also and monkeys are taught sign language.

Birds are known to build nests or homes for themselves, in fact many animals build homes, including ants. Sea otters use tools to open clams, they smash the clam against a rock.

 

[Shemjaza]

Please explain the expression "is true beyond all reasonable doubt"

The physical evidence from multiple fields of science, are separately consistent with evolutionary being the expectation for the variety of life on Earth.

While people might have personal reasons not to believe in evolution, no objective evidence has been discovered and no competing scientific theory has been presented.

(Other ideas like Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism can't be proven false, but do not make falsifiable scientific predictions, so can't be tested by science.)