Why are there still apes?

[Hans Blaster]

The default position of God exists until proven otherwise is based on our millenniums old philosophical principles like "everything begins to exist has a cause", " ad infinitum", "no object can escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent etc".

Evolution, and the evidence for it, aren't dependent on these sorts of metaphysical arguments. Period. This is veering far from ape evolution and into forbidden apologetics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@Shemjaza @FrumiousBandersnatch

I am able to address every single objections you raised but, in order to keep this thread within the intended context - let us not assume God. Let us do a-posteriori study without any assumptions on the nature of the cause.

OK - off you go then... but first explain what cause you're talking about.

 

[Shemjaza]

@Shemjaza @FrumiousBandersnatch

I am able to address every single objections you raised but, in order to keep this thread within the intended context - let us not assume God. Let us do a-posteriori study without any assumptions on the nature of the cause.

The cause for what?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I hate to state the obvious but snakes have special glands, fangs and mechanisms in their brain to inject different dose of venom depending on the prey or enemy. I also read that some snakes have cocktails of venom.

How did snakes develop those glands, fangs, mechanisms, and "cocktails of venom" that work together to kill their prey, but don't kill the snake itself? Simple. There were a whole "cocktail" of different mutations spread out over many years.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Also, I found this

Despite impressive advances, we’re still a long way from understanding the genetic and neural basis of even simple behaviors.

Oh, you found a quote? I suppose you would like us to be impressed, huh?

Were you aware that science is based on finding evidence, not on mining quotes?

Actually, it is worth investigating. If God is the cause of arrival of first generation of species (arrival of life), God is the one caused the arrival of later generation of species ( diversification of life).

Non sequitur.

Even if you were to demonstrate that God was the cause of the first life form--which you have not yet done--that would not prove that all future life forms were caused by the same God.

I have been debating with atheists and Evolutionists ( who rejects pre design) for over 10 years now.

And nobody ever explained to you that finding a quote from an authority--usually out of context--is not how science advances?

The more I debate, more I am convinced there is Intelligent Design behind the arrival of species.

That's odd.

I started debating, convinced that there was Intelligent Design behind it all. But as time went on, the "God of the gaps" I was arguing for kept getting smaller. I got tired of saying, "Yes, good point, but, here is a smaller gap where I need to insert God."

My support of design and designer is based on millennium old philosophical principles like " ad infinitum", "every thing begins to exists has a cause" , " an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent" etc. These are the principles upon which the foundation of Science is on and also, our daily life.

Why cannot mutation and natural selection be the cause of the origin of species?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I cited the Fall for the benefit of the believers who are reading the post. Nonetheless, I stated that the Eternal mind work on its own plan not always be comprehensible by humans whose mind is limited by space and time

Ah, your reference to "the Fall" was a dog whistle for Bible thumpers? You yourself don't actually believe there was an Adam and Eve who were created from scratch several thousand years ago that fell when they ate an apple they were told not to eat?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I stated that the Eternal mind work on its own plan not always be comprehensible by humans...

Oh, GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) again... That often comes up as a catch-all 'explanation' for contradictions, absurdities, irrationalities, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) again... That often comes up as a catch-all 'explanation' for contradictions, absurdities, irrationalities, etc.

Are you bragging, or complaining?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you bragging, or complaining?

How would that be a "brag"?

 

[AV1611VET]

How would that be a "brag"?

Well, he could be impressed ... like we are ... that God works in mysterious ways.

On the other hand, maybe he's complaining that God works in mysterious ways, and myopic science can't explain them?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, he could be impressed ... like we are ... that God works in mysterious ways.

On the other hand, maybe he's complaining that God works in mysterious ways, and myopic science can't explain them?

I'm not an expert, but it sure looks like annoyance to me. Or maybe exasperation. I'm personally sick of the thought-killing shrug of "god works in mysterious ways". I always preferred to look for real explanations rather than to profess satisfaction with ignorance.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not an expert, but it sure looks like annoyance to me. Or maybe exasperation. I'm personally sick of the thought-killing shrug of "god works in mysterious ways". I always preferred to look for real explanations rather than to profess satisfaction with ignorance.

You want us to lie and say God always works in predictable ways?

 

[Gene2memE]

Ok, there is no harm in not assuming a deity.

There can be. It depends on what the tenets of the accompanying religion are.

If we study the diversification of life - origin of life, arrival of male and female species and their instincts, metaphysical attributes of humans etc.[*] - do we see a predesign or not ?

* I explained why these development posit creator in the previous thread.

No, we do not.

No they are not.

Yes, they are.

God who transcends space and time is not "demostrable" by definition.

Then there is insufficient evidence to accept any claim of their existence.

Circular reasoning - I raised the point of mutation that generated the venom cannot be due to natural agents but the statement above assumes the same.

I hate to state the obvious but snakes have special glands, fangs and mechanisms in their brain to inject different dose of venom depending on the prey or enemy. I also read that some snakes have cocktails of venom.

Evolutionary origin of venom is still up for debate, but the prevailing hypothesis is that venom was the result of mutations to existing salivary ducts. Like a lot of things in evolution, it was most likely a modification/re-purposing of existing biological structure.

And again, your personal incredulity or the ability of biology to explain a particular aspect of evolutionary history does nothing to actually invalidate the ToE.

 

[Speedwell]

You want us to lie and say God always works in predictable ways?

I think the argument here is, that God always works in detectable ways thus His existence can be proven so you have to believe whether you want to or not. That's basically the ID argument, anyway.

 

[Gottservant]

A more accurate way of putting the question, of this thread: "if the selection pressure that made apes humans, is still there: why aren't apes climbing over themselves to become, more human?"

 

[Strathos]

A more accurate way of putting the question, of this thread: "if the selection pressure that made apes humans, is still there

It's not.

 

[Shemjaza]

A more accurate way of putting the question, of this thread: "if the selection pressure that made apes humans, is still there: why aren't apes climbing over themselves to become, more human?"

Because there are humans in that niche... and any hypothetical ape population wouldn't go well with an expansion into human environments.

There used to be many kinds of "human-like" creatures, now there is only one. Some were absorbed, some were pushed into isolated, inferior environments and some were killed.

 

[Gottservant]

Because there are humans in that niche... and any hypothetical ape population wouldn't go well with an expansion into human environments.

There used to be many kinds of "human-like" creatures, now there is only one. Some were absorbed, some were pushed into isolated, inferior environments and some were killed.

So you're saying "if we were wiped out (by a 'meteor', say), the remainder of the apes, would have sufficient selection pressure, to become human again"?

I don't buy that. Sorry, I just don't.

And because you say "some were absorbed", I find you in breach of the specie's definition of "human" - that's not wrong: if you cease to attempt to overdub the true definition, that others want to make a foundation.

I would like to know: what basis do you have, for saying a true definition, was an afterthought? Surely if a selection pressure was there, it was there "preeminently"?? (By which you would say, "the eventuous humanity, would have had a number of opportunities to be so, that is, at least slightly ubiquitously")

 

[Shemjaza]

So you're saying "if we were wiped out (by a 'meteor', say), the remainder of the apes, would have sufficient selection pressure, to become human again"?

Maybe. Certainly they are in a better position then any other species living.

But intelligence is incredibly rare on our planet and even high intelligence probably isn't an automatic progression.

I don't buy that. Sorry, I just don't.

That's a text book example of personal incredulity.

Apes are more intelligent, technical and cooperative then almost all species living... technological intelligence is hardly likely, but impossible seems unjustified.

And because you say "some were absorbed", I find you in breach of the specie's definition of "human" - that's not wrong: if you cease to attempt to overdub the true definition, that others want to make a foundation.

The distinction between closely related species gets murky. Tigers and Lions are clearly separate species... but some of their hybrid offspring are fertile.

Also, humans, Neanderthals and Denisova were able to breed together... leaving a small remnant of Neanderthal DNA in most of humanity.

I would like to know: what basis do you have, for saying a true definition, was an afterthought? Surely if a selection pressure was there, it was there "preeminently"?? (By which you would say, "the eventuous humanity, would have had a number of opportunities to be so, that is, at least slightly ubiquitously")

I don't understand what you mean by this?

True definition of what? Species? Humanity?

Can you explain this and what you mean by your quoted terms?

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe. Certainly they are in a better position then any other species living.

So you are a judge (of species)?

But intelligence is incredibly rare on our planet and even high intelligence probably isn't an automatic progression.

You have "automation", to back you up??

[...]
Apes are more intelligent, technical and cooperative then almost all species living... technological intelligence is hardly likely, but impossible seems unjustified.




The distinction between closely related species gets murky. Tigers and Lions are clearly separate species... but some of their hybrid offspring are fertile.

Also, humans, Neanderthals and Denisova were able to breed together... leaving a small remnant of Neanderthal DNA in most of humanity.

So it is "fertility", that is your stock in trade???

I don't understand what you mean by this?

True definition of what? Species? Humanity?

Can you explain this and what you mean by your quoted terms?

I just mean you are adding and subtracting from your definition of humanity, as seems to suit you. Whereas, if it actually meant something the act of committing to it would result in a number of changes (not merely the most recent convenience). The idea that you just pop in and out of a related adaptation (related to the species), only becomes more and more incredulous.

...that is, unless you can show some sort of consensus, intra-specieally. The accent to Evolution's product, is different from the consensus, on which the adaptation is thought to be based.

If I said "I have a car", you would not assume "every car I see, must be his", you would say "show me the key" - the key would be evidence of the right to the road, on which the travel (in that car) is based.

If you were called before the judge, for speeding in a car that didn't need a key, your primary defence would be "I didn't know there were rules, for driving this car, I just assumed it didn't matter" - you would still be punished, but the penalty would be less.

What we have, with Evolution, is a bunch of people saying "I didn't see a key to the population, I just assumed there were no rules - when evidence turned up that there was confusion about which population was most responsible, I just assumed it wouldn't matter". It does matter. Things done believing you are a descendent of an ape, are more reprehensible, not less - because you are ignoring the culpability of yourself, but also those with you.

I for one, want to be known - however punitively - for refusing to identify with a people, refusing to identify with Jesus, specifically His Humanity. It simply cannot stand, that I saw Christ's humanity on the cross, and did not see, punishment for human sins meted out to Him. We are all equally culpable.

Maybe, just maybe, the good we are doing focussing on science, will turn out to be better than licking our wounds, at the foot of the cross - but Christians do not lick their wounds. The whole premise of scapegoating the human race, in the name of nature, is not Christ's will for the humanity He created.

The truth is, Jesus would die again, if it meant you would be saved from believing a scapegoat - the problem is, we know from the Father, that you not confessing your sins means that it wouldn't make a difference.

If you want to question anything, question "why does he have a problem with scapegoating, if he can just repent himself?" - which is a fool's question, granted, but that is how dire the folly is, if left unchecked.