What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[renniks]

Not quite (we didn't evolve from chimps but from a common ancestor of chimps & humans), it's quite consistent with evolution. Speciation typically happens when there is reproductive isolation of populations, which is often geographic. If one population remains in the original environment, occupying its original niche, and that environment is relatively stable, they will be likely to live as their ancestors did for long periods, with evolutionary change proceeding relatively slowly.

A population that moves into a new environment with different selection pressures will generally have to change its lifestyle as well as evolving relatively rapidly under the pressure of the new environmental challenges.

If the common ancestor of chimps and humans was forest-dwelling and the human lineage split off as a population group or groups and migrated into the savannah or along the coast, you would expect to see relatively rapid evolutionary changes in the migrating groups relative to those that remained in the original environment.

There's always another way to try and prop up the tottering evolution theory. Until it eventually crashes from too much improbability.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's always another way to try and prop up the tottering evolution theory. Until it eventually crashes from too much improbability.

If you're referring to the description of reproductive/geographic isolation in my post, that's probably the most cause of speciation - supported by observational evidence, genetic evidence, and the fossil record.

 

[Phred]

There's always another way to try and prop up the tottering evolution theory. Until it eventually crashes from too much improbability.

Says the guy who believes donkey and snakes talk, that angels are real. That demons and devils and heaven and hell are all real.

Tell me how you proved your god was the one true god. What methodology did you use? How did you show that not only did a god exist but that it wasn't Apollo? Tell me all about improbability.

 

[Astrid]

If you're referring to the description of reproductive/geographic isolation in my post, that's probably the most cause of speciation - supported by observational evidence, genetic evidence, and the fossil record.

You would have more luck and less rigidly
insensible ideology in the way, trying to talk my old
Uncle out of his Maoist beliefs.

Stupid spell changer turned that into "Moist"

 

[Astrid]

Says the guy who believes donkey and snakes talk, that angels are real. That demons and devils and heaven and hell are all real.

Tell me how you proved your god was the one true god. What methodology did you use? How did you show that not only did a god exist but that it wasn't Apollo? Tell me all about improbability.

Out of all the religions that ever existed,
and the endless subsets, variations and
personal interpretations, our heros find
EXACTLY the one true one.
Sounds improbable but it hapoens billions of times,
in every religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says the guy who believes donkey and snakes talk, that angels are real. That demons and devils and heaven and hell are all real.

I know you're not talking about me, but I even believe Paul Bunyan was real.

Tell me how you proved your god was the one true god.

He drew me.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

He's drawing you too.

 

[o_mlly]

Not quite (we didn't evolve from chimps but from a common ancestor of chimps & humans), it's quite consistent with evolution. Speciation typically happens when there is reproductive isolation of populations, which is often geographic. If one population remains in the original environment, occupying its original niche, and that environment is relatively stable, they will be likely to live as their ancestors did for long periods, with evolutionary change proceeding relatively slowly.

A population that moves into a new environment with different selection pressures will generally have to change its lifestyle as well as evolving relatively rapidly under the pressure of the new environmental challenges.

If the common ancestor of chimps and humans was forest-dwelling and the human lineage split off as a population group or groups and migrated into the savannah or along the coast, you would expect to see relatively rapid evolutionary changes in the migrating groups relative to those that remained in the original environment.

First, thanks for a reasoned argument rather than the too often emotional ad hominems from the AAS (atheist, agnostic, skeptic) posters. Also, thanks for the use of the indicative rather than imperative mood in your consequences which respects the conditionals used to arrive at them.

It appears that you agree with the evo theory that the change agent for the diversity of all life forms is the environment. True?

If speciation has occurred then one would expect to see significant morphological changes in the two groups at some point after separation, eg., runners on the savanna would develop longer, stronger legs, an ability to stand upright, more sweat glands, an enhanced capacity to store water in its body, etc. If the migrating group was a new species then members of the two groups of opposite sex could not successfully reproduce fertile offspring by definition. Is there any evidence of either of these characteristics between the rain forest chimps and the Fongoli chimps?

 

[Phred]

I know you're not talking about me, but I even believe Paul Bunyan was real.He drew me.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

He's drawing you too.

"He" isn't real. "He" is the outcome of a tribe wanting to get the edge in battle. "OUR god is meaner than your god." YHWH the storm god of the Israelites. OOOOOO. It's 2021 and you're still running around pretending angels and gods exist.

 

[Phred]

First, thanks for a reasoned argument rather than the too often emotional ad hominems from the AAS (atheist, agnostic, skeptic) posters. Also, thanks for the use of the indicative rather than imperative mood in your consequences which respects the conditionals used to arrive at them.

It appears that you agree with the evo theory that the change agent for the diversity of all life forms is the environment. True?

If speciation has occurred then one would expect to see significant morphological changes in the two groups at some point after separation, eg., runners on the savanna would develop longer, stronger legs, an ability to stand upright, more sweat glands, an enhanced capacity to store water in its body, etc. If the migrating group was a new species then members of the two groups of opposite sex could not successfully reproduce fertile offspring by definition. Is there any evidence of either of these characteristics between the rain forest chimps and the Fongoli chimps?

That is incorrect. You're stuck in the design camp. You can see what you think would be a good trait to have and so it must occur. That's not how it works. Mutations happen. They aren't designed. If a mutation helps the organism reproduce better than an organism that doesn't have that mutation then the mutation will be selected. Speciation guarantees that any changes to one population cannot transfer back to the original population. And so the two groups can only become more and more different.

Environment is the cause of the selection, not the mutation. Please remember that no parent ever had a child that they did not recognize. So asking if any of these kinds of characteristics have appeared between two groups of chimps is... well, silly.

 

[Astrid]

First, thanks for a reasoned argument rather than the too often emotional ad hominems from the AAS (atheist, agnostic, skeptic) posters. Also, thanks for the use of the indicative rather than imperative mood in your consequences which respects the conditionals used to arrive at them.

It appears that you agree with the evo theory that the change agent for the diversity of all life forms is the environment. True?

If speciation has occurred then one would expect to see significant morphological changes in the two groups at some point after separation, eg., runners on the savanna would develop longer, stronger legs, an ability to stand upright, more sweat glands, an enhanced capacity to store water in its body, etc. If the migrating group was a new species then members of the two groups of opposite sex could not successfully reproduce fertile offspring by definition. Is there any evidence of either of these characteristics between the rain forest chimps and the Fongoli chimps?

Wolf and coyote, cow and bison, different species,
fertile offspring.
Fongoli chimps live in a forested area.

Probably if they were moved to say Australia,
and you checked back in a million years you
would see a lot of differences between them
and their African cousins
Whether they could or would interbreed, who
could say.

 

[o_mlly]

That is incorrect.

That's not an argument.

You're stuck in the design camp

Ditto.

You can see what you think would be a good trait to have and so it must occur.

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between "eg" and "ie".

The rest of your post indicates you did not read mine but merely lurched to the usual atheist's evo mumbo jumbo. Try reading what I wrote, take a deep breath, and give an argument instead of a rant.

 

[Astrid]

That's not an argument.

Ditto.

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between "eg" and "ie".

The rest of your post indicates you did not read mine but merely lurched to the usual atheist's evo mumbo jumbo. Try reading what I wrote, take a deep breath, and give an argument instead of a rant.

Not that is addressed to me or that you would, either one but,
If it were, we'd quote Eliza Dolittle:

"What Lady could possibly resist such a delightful invitation"?

 

[AV1611VET]

"He" isn't real.

Someone didn't get the memo then:

Dionysus (BC vs AD), the Cornish people ("The First Noel"), King James I, Baccio Pontelli (Sistine Chapel), our 84th Congress (IN GOD WE TRUST), Drury Lane ("God Save the Queen"), as well as many, many others.

It's 2021 and you're still running around pretending angels and gods exist.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Phred]

Someone didn't get the memo then:

Dionysus (BC vs AD), the Cornish people ("The First Noel"), King James I, Baccio Pontelli (Sistine Chapel), our 84th Congress (IN GOD WE TRUST), Drury Lane ("God Save the Queen"), as well as many, many others.Merry Christmas!

NONE of these are verifiable evidence that your deity is real. They're just evidence that other people believe like you do. Still can't quite grasp that concept can you?

 

[Phred]

That's not an argument.

Ditto.

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between "eg" and "ie".

The rest of your post indicates you did not read mine but merely lurched to the usual atheist's evo mumbo jumbo. Try reading what I wrote, take a deep breath, and give an argument instead of a rant.

Those were statements. Clear, concise statements. You were incorrect and stating design nonsense. You are entrenched in your position an cannot manage to extricate yourself from it.

You are incorrect.

 

[Astrid]

Those were statements. Clear, concise statements. You were incorrect and stating design nonsense. You are entrenched in your position an cannot manage to extricate yourself from it.

You are incorrect.

And insulting.

 

[AV1611VET]

NONE of these are verifiable evidence that your deity is real. They're just evidence that other people believe like you do. Still can't quite grasp that concept can you?

Oh, I grasp it just dandy fine.

But it's cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God, and some don't realize it, because they are taught to give equal airtime to all supernatural beliefs, and end up inadvertently throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

They are also testimonies to the Biblical principle that good works follow faith ("faith without works is dead").

 

[Phred]

Oh, I grasp it just dandy fine.

But it's cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God, and some don't realize it, because they are taught to give equal airtime to all supernatural beliefs, and end up inadvertently throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

They are also testimonies to the Biblical principle that good works follow faith ("faith without works is dead").

It's not cause and effect for the existence of God. It's proof of the existence of believers.

 

[Frank Robert]

There's always another way to try and prop up the tottering evolution theory.

Advances in evolution by evidence and so far there is zero evidence that it is ToE is tottering.

Until it eventually crashes from too much improbability.

You need to inform AIG, DI, IRC and their sister sites that apologetics is not evidence.

 

[Phred]

Oh, I grasp it just dandy fine.

But it's cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God, and some don't realize it, because they are taught to give equal airtime to all supernatural beliefs, and end up inadvertently throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

They are also testimonies to the Biblical principle that good works follow faith ("faith without works is dead").

How would you prove that Bigfoot exists? Would you show me books written about Bigfoot? Would you show me the tourist shacks devoted to selling Bigfoot souvenirs? Would you show me a song about Bigfoot? NONE of that proves that Bigfoot is real. Yet here you are showing me all this nonsense about your god and claiming it proves he's real.