What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[SelfSim]

Apparently the English have been bowdlerizing the slavery references for 400+ years:

View attachment 300550

Hmm .. interesting .. (thanks for that).
I'm yet to hear of, or see, any 'servant under yoke' who willingly put themselves in that particular situation, anyway, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

Religious views on smoking - Wikipedia

I found this quote succinct and straight to point .. (Father Alexander Lebedeff describing the Orthodox approach):

'God gave us a mind and a conscience and we should use them to determine what is right and what is wrong, whether or not the particular yes issue has been addressed in the canons or not'.

Good on him .. (quite refreshing, IMO, actually).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A majority of blacks and Latinos support the teaching of creation in public schools:



Perhaps they know about how evolution has been used, ever since Darwin's The Descent of Man was published, to justify racism. Need I quote Darwin's own words again?

I highly doubt that it's because of that. I doubt that you could even show correlation or causation.

 

[Gottservant]

We're often told that chimps and humans are 98% similar, but I've also read the more recent estimation is 95%. Either way, are scientists today in any way close to explaining how natural selection acting on random mutation created the vast differences between chimps and humans?

My question is "is the selection pressure that changed chimps to humans still there?"

In other words, would chimps do better than human, given the chance?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My question is "is the selection pressure that changed chimps to humans still there?"

In other words, would chimps do better than human, given the chance?

We don't know.

 

[Gottservant]

We don't know.

Maybe other species would do better than human, given the right selection pressure?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe other species would do better than human, given the right selection pressure?

Probably, and probably not. We just do not know because we cannot predict the future.

 

[Gottservant]

Probably, and probably not. We just do not know because we cannot predict the future.

Normally I would act up and decry that you claim to be able to predict change from the evidence.

But I honestly believe that you don't know - that you don't know and that you wish you did.

I am not going to corner you, suffice it to say I still need a vouchsafe of some kind that you won't turn and bite at me - because I insist that belief has an active component, (an active component) that belief of an Evolutionary kind can't resist... what would you say is in my favour, if I work out a method for determining what is predictable about Evolution?

I mean what would make you say "that's different!" when it comes to my understanding of Evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Normally I would act up and decry that you claim to be able to predict change from the evidence.

But I honestly believe that you don't know - that you don't know and that you wish you did.

I am not going to corner you, suffice it to say I still need a vouchsafe of some kind that you won't turn and bite at me - because I insist that belief has an active component, (an active component) that belief of an Evolutionary kind can't resist... what would you say is in my favour, if I work out a method for determining what is predictable about Evolution?

I mean what would make you say "that's different!" when it comes to my understanding of Evolution?

I've never once made a prediction about evolution so I don't think you would anyway.

We do not know what the future will be like with regard to life and evolution because we literally do not know. The future is not known so we really cannot make any long term predictions about life on earth.

 

[Gottservant]

I've never once made a prediction about evolution so I don't think you would anyway.

You honestly can't understand that when you say "humans came from chimps" you are making a prediction, without countervailing pressure, the latter will have an affinity for the former?

We do not know what the future will be like with regard to life and evolution because we literally do not know. The future is not known so we really cannot make any long term predictions about life on earth.

Sorry, I just thought that was the whole point, that because of what you discern, you are capable of predicting more?

 

[driewerf]

These are my personal standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

... even not when demonstrably wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

... even not when demonstrably wrong.

Even not when demonstrably wrong.

Faith: believing something, even when science shows otherwise.

Science is notorious for demonstrating things that are later shown to be wrong.

Geocentrism, Phlogiston theory, Nebraska Man, Pluto, Thalidomide, the list goes on.

I'm not going to update my profile with every issue of Scientific American that comes out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You honestly can't understand that when you say "humans came from chimps" you are making a prediction, without countervailing pressure, the latter will have an affinity for the former?

No-one is saying that humans come from chimps and I certainly did not say that humans come from chimps. So that claim is a lie right there.

Sorry, I just thought that was the whole point, that because of what you discern, you are capable of predicting more?

And this comment makes no sense.

 

[Frank Robert]

My question is "is the selection pressure that changed chimps to humans still there?"

In other words, would chimps do better than human, given the chance?

There were no selection pressures that changed chimps to human. Chimps and humans are separate species from a common ancestor.

Chimps spend much of their lives in trees while humans walk upright on the ground. Humans had the advantage of movement over a greater range plus greater population density. Chimps and humans never had the same environmental pressures.

 

[Frank Robert]

Maybe other species would do better than human, given the right selection pressure?

Selection pressure does not equal evolution. It is a significant driver of evolution along with other significant drivers such genetic diversity and population.

 

[o_mlly]

Probably, and probably not. We just do not know because we cannot predict the future.

? A scientific hypothesis find its merit in its usefulness to predict future events.

Let me explain, based on observations ... oh, wait. That doesn't apply here. Darwin wrote a book entitled, "On the Origin of Species" without a single observation of speciation (whatever that is). Doesn't that fact put his book in the Sci-Fi section?

 

[Frank Robert]

I mean what would make you say "that's different!" when it comes to my understanding of Evolution?

A naïve theory of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

? A scientific hypothesis find its merit in its usefulness to predict future events.

Let me explain, based on observations ... oh, wait. That doesn't apply here. Darwin wrote a book entitled, "On the Origin of Species" without a single observation of speciation (whatever that is). Doesn't that fact put his book in the Sci-Fi section?

But it's true that we cannot make a prediction on which non-human animals could rise to dominance on the earth if humans disappeared. It is impossible to make that sort of long term prediction because the variables are too many and unknown.

That doesn't disqualify the theory of evolution as science though.

 

[Ophiolite]

? A scientific hypothesis find its merit in its usefulness to predict future events.

Let me explain, based on observations ... oh, wait. That doesn't apply here. Darwin wrote a book entitled, "On the Origin of Species" without a single observation of speciation (whatever that is). Doesn't that fact put his book in the Sci-Fi section?

Do you think the discussion would be more productive if you avoided the snide, contemptuous style? I think it would.
Scientists have often commented on the singular lack of such an example. Probably more comments have been made about the misinterpretation that many have made of that lack.

• I wonder if you have actually read the work. It is jammed pack with examples of biological change as evidence by domestication of animals and the snapshot of organisms in nature and reasonable projections as to their past. (Not to mention the evidence implicit in fossils.)
  
• I say snapshot because it should be self evident that since speciation generally takes a considerable time in human terms it was not likely Darwin would have had the opportunity to witness it first hand.

Edit: I completely overlooked your opening sentence. That is one use of a scientfic hypothesis, but it may also be of value in determining what has happened in the past.

 

[Astrid]

As I've already stated, I took anthropology in college and had to write papers on the purported evidence for human evolution. I've also presented reasons, other than blind faith, for doubting this evidence.

The oscillations in finch beak sizes and the coloring of peppered months that we can observe in the present does not prove that natural selection acting on random mutation was responsible for the vast differences between chimps and humans. It's an extrapolation.

This is not just a matter of what's comfortable. From a pragmatic perspective, what belief is the better impetus for morality?



You are saying that to probably the biggest Ben Shapiro fan in the world. It would only be relevant to this discussion if it were already proved that natural selection acting on random mutation was responsible for the vast differences between chimps and humans.

You've so thoroughly demonstrated you have only
a very sketchy and mostly wrong impression of
evolution, claiming knowledge you don't have
only loses points.
As for blind faith that ToE is wrong, well,
that's what it is, faith. Faith, profound bias
and ignorance of the topic.

Best to just say it's (blind) faith, the rest just
sounds foolish to those who are better educated.