What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[AV1611VET]

Chess is bad. I almost flunked out of college in my freshman year because of chess. Luckily, after I beat the school champion I quit playing and haven't played much since.

My dad was a checkers player. He wanted a shot at Marion Tinsley, but never got it. Tinsley was the greatest checkers champion that ever lived.

 

[Frank Robert]

? No game, I simply asked that you complete your sentence , “If evolution is true, then we predict that….” and provide evidence that the prediction has been validated.

If that was your point I misread or misunderstood it.

Unless "species" is unambiguously defined, one cannot use it as a referent upon which to define macroevoluiton.

Algae do not breed and are something between plants and animals as creatures. The lab experiment that demonstrated the creatures propensity to go multicellular in certain environments does not evidence a new species (still need a definition). The creature very well could have always had the potential to go multicellular when necessary. As “plants” the algae produce their own food and as “animals” they can eat other plants or even their own grazers.

Appears your argument is with the definition of microevolution.

If you want to argue it bring it over to a forum like Peaceful Science where you can do trash it out with biologists and other scientists who are working in the field.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Unless "species" is unambiguously defined, one cannot use it as a referent upon which to define macroevoluiton.

The "interbreeding" definition of species you referenced is a definition applied to sexually reproducing animals.

Why do we need to define "macroevolution"? Evolution is just evolution. There's nothing really special about "macroevolution" other than the cumulative change between groups of individuals such that we would classify them as different species. For some types of life forms this separation might be more clear than for others.

Definitions aren't going to make evolution go away.

 

[Astrid]

The "interbreeding" definition of species you referenced is a definition applied to sexually reproducing animals.

Why do we need to define "macroevolution"? Evolution is just evolution. There's nothing really special about "macroevolution" other than the cumulative change between groups of individuals such that we would classify them as different species. For some types of life forms this separation might be more clear than for others.

Definitions aren't going to make evolution go away.

It's equivalent to a demand that one give
an "unambiguous" definition, to identify the exact
moment when day passes to night.

The blurring of lines is precisely because
of evolution. Not that a creationist would know enough
to know something so basic.
Let alone have a clue to know sonething like how
to disprove or debate evolution.

Consequentemente, there's nothing for it but to
make up something, in this case
the too clever by one half demand for the
impossible, (else ToE is defeated).

One could easily think of a lot of ways
turn that back on the perp, but such lame
rhetoric is beneath dignity.

 

[AV1611VET]

One could easily think of a lot of ways
turn that back on the perp, but such lame rhetoric is beneath dignity.

Shouldn't be too hard for some then, should it?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

This video is on the differences between chimps and humans that natural selection acting on random mutation has not explained:

 

[Hans Blaster]

This video is on the differences between chimps and humans that natural selection acting on random mutation has not explained:

Have you watched the video?

It does *NOT* demonstrate in the least the "unexplained" parts of difference between chimps and humans represent a failure of natural selection.

The first 4 minutes is an extended accusation that the "98% identical" claim between human and chimp DNA accusing scientists making that claim of deception. Then they show a ~~secular~~ video that explains exactly that and why it is done.

At ~4 minutes the video just flat out claims that natural selection can't explain that and instantly makes a whole series of god claims. For the rest of the video they repeat various creationist claims and tropes and make several additional claims that natural selection couldn't do these things and "god did it".

No where in the video do they discuss the actual genetic differences and how the couldn't be from natural selection.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

 

[Hans Blaster]

This has *nothing* to do with the thread or any post made in it.

Do you want to discuss things, or do you think this is a "meme board". (Hint: It's not.)

 

[Astrid]

Have you watched the video?

It does *NOT* demonstrate in the least the "unexplained" parts of difference between chimps and humans represent a failure of natural selection.

The first 4 minutes is an extended accusation that the "98% identical" claim between human and chimp DNA accusing scientists making that claim of deception. Then they show a ~~secular~~ video that explains exactly that and why it is done.

At ~4 minutes the video just flat out claims that natural selection can't explain that and instantly makes a whole series of god claims. For the rest of the video they repeat various creationist claims and tropes and make several additional claims that natural selection couldn't do these things and "god did it".

No where in the video do they discuss the actual genetic differences and how the couldn't be from natural selection.

Typical creationist due diligence failed to notice any of that.

 

[Astrid]

This has *nothing* to do with the thread or any post made in it.

Do you want to discuss things, or do you think this is a "meme board". (Hint: It's not.)

Just letting you know that what this "Dawkins" speaks
Is to be regarded as universal Truth.

 

[o_mlly]

The "interbreeding" definition of species you referenced is a definition applied to sexually reproducing animals.

I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.

Definitions aren't going to make evolution go away.

Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.

How can one claim a theory for the origin of species and not define what "species" means? What is your definition for "species"?

 

[Astrid]

I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.

Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.

How can one claim a theory for the origin of species and not define what "species" means? What is your definition for "species"?

We all know there is day, and night.
Everyone knows a toad is not the same
species as a doodlebug.
Your demand though?
It is the same as waiting for an exact definition
of the line behind night and day before you
belive they exist.

Deliberately asking such a question
is neither honest nor how science works.
If you think it's a real question then
you are in an exceptionally poor position
to hold forth on what science is.

Nobody is fooled, unless you are
tricking yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is the same as waiting for an exact definition
of the line behind night and day before you belive they exist.

6 pm.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.

You were quoting a post that used that definition, and then you went on to comment about things outside that definition that weren't like sexually reproducing animals (like algae).

Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.

How can one claim a theory for the origin of species and not define what "species" means? What is your definition for "species"?

Species is a term from biology so ask a biologist (or read a textbook), not me. I'm not a biologist or "evolutionist".

I'm sorry that you can't accept that the concept of "species" isn't as cleanly defined as "element".

That you can't find a definition that satisfies you doesn't change that the interbreeding population we call "human" and the one we call "chimpanzee" are currently not interbreeding with the other, and the evidence is very strong that the two populations were once a single interbreeding population.

 

[o_mlly]

You were quoting a post that used that definition ...

Then I referenced a post; not a definition. Please be precise.

Species is a term from biology so ask a biologist (or read a textbook), not me.

Another dodge on giving an unambiguous definition for "species".

I'm not a biologist or "evolutionist"

? You have beaucoup posts in the "Creation and Evolution" forum.

I'm sorry that you can't accept that the concept of "species" isn't as cleanly defined as "element".

No need for emotions. Don't be sorry; let's be rational about the matter and define our terms.

 

[Frank Robert]

This video is on the differences between chimps and humans that natural selection acting on random mutation has not explained:

What Makes Us Different?

Comparisons of the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are revealing those rare stretches of DNA that are ours alone

In Brief

• Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans and share nearly 99 percent of our DNA.
• Efforts to identify those regions of the human genome that have changed the most since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor have helped pinpoint the DNA sequences that make us human.
• The findings have also provided vital insights into how chimps and humans can differ so profoundly, despite having nearly identical DNA blueprints.

You appear to be complaining that science does not know enough to suit you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans and share nearly 99 percent of our DNA.

Science terminology at its best.

 

[Frank Robert]

I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.

Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.

You are wrong. Which evolutionary scientists do you know that claim that without an exact definition of species imagination rules?

How can one claim a theory for the origin of species and not define what "species" means? What is your definition for "species"?

Once again, the definition of species is a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature but some biologists... It like a rule that we do not throw out because there are exceptions.

 

[Frank Robert]

Science terminology at its best.

What is wrong with the term "closest relatives" in describing our relationship with chimps.