If evolution is real why are there still apes?

[Mason Michaels]

fight climate change!

I do my part!

 

[Gondwanaland]

Why do I get the impression that you are yet another moron who needs the world to know just how stupid he really is?


You are a total idiot, aren't you?


No, genius ... I specified the theory about which I was talking. There are many theories of evolution and Darwin's is but one.


Since you are a scientifically illiterate dufus who obviously doesn't even know what science is, I'll give you a little help.

Science doesn't use supporting evidence. You didn't know that, did you? I'm the first person to teach you this, aren't I? You slept through high school, didn't you? The scientific method uses falsifying evidence to show a model false, but you can gather all the "evidence" you want supporting your preferred model of gravity and nobody will care.


Nope. When it comes time to mock you, I'm going to be first in line. I bet you are as mathematically incompetent as you are scientifically illiterate. You get an "A" for effort on your bluff, but I'm not your standard undereducated leftist, as you are. I'm going to have a lot of fun with you as long as you pretend to have any sort of competency in science because I know you don't have any. Now everyone else knows as well.

Let's dance. Oh, and get ready to choke on your room full of dicks.

Too funny.

So you have nothing. Got it.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Gravity is proven science halfwit. Evolution, not so much. Now run along. You're basement is calling you.

Correct, gravity, like evolution, is 'proven science'. Gravity, like evolution, has just as much to support it. Come back when you get that dildo out your ass.

 

[IBDaMann]

So you have nothing. Got it.

Yes, fleeing is your best option. Please be careful not to trip over your tail between your legs.

 

[IBDaMann]

I do my part!

How, may I ask?

When you get a chance, could you post here in this thread the official, unambiguous definition of the global climate whose change you are fighting? Thanks in advance.

 

[IBDaMann]

Correct, gravity, like evolution, is 'proven science'.

We already know that you are an undereducated leftist, so you don't have to rehash that point.

There is no such thing as "proven science." You were supposed to call "bullshit" when you were told that ... but then again, you were supposed to have remained awake throughout your schooling.

When you say "evolution" you need to specify of which theory you are speaking. There are many theories of evolution.

Genetics is not a theory of evolution. Genetics is science; it is a molecular model that predicts nature. Genetics does not speculate about the past.

Evolution theories and their speculative timelines are merely speculations about the past. They change constantly as the speculations en vogue change.

Darwin's theory, however, has no speculative timeline and as a theory, never changes. On the one hand, no one I know disagrees with any of it, but on the other hand, the theory neither predicts the future nor declares the past, so it is a theory that can only be appreciated for the deductive epiphany that it inspires. It also doesn't conflict with Christianity, Islam, Judaism or really any other religion.

Gravity, like evolution, has just as much to support it.

1. Quantity of support is irrelevant in science. The existence of one falsifying example is all that matters.
2. There is infinitely more support for either Newton's or Einstein's theory of gravity than there is for Darwin's theory of evolution. You can get all the supporting evidence you need for gravity by walking across the room; not so with Darwin's theory.

There is no shame in calling out for help ... with your elementary school homework. Just take the first step.

 

[IBDaMann]

OK. We get that. You're ancestors were apes. Next.

So true in his case.

Do you both know what apes are?

 

[RB 60]

Do you both know what apes are?

Inhuman? That'd be my guess.

 

[IBDaMann]

Inhuman? That'd be my guess.

The reason I bring it up is that many Christians find it more palatable to reject observable biological characteristics than face the connotation of sharing traits with other animals.

Apes are simply hominids without tails (but nonetheless with tailbones). You'll find that you don't have a tail but that you have a coccyx (tailbone). Your parents, likewise. Your ancestors, likewise.

I'm simply making a friendly recommendation that you consider acknowledging that you possess the physical characteristics that define the class of "apes" and simultaneously recognize that you are not in any other subset besides "human."

 

[RB 60]

The reason I bring it up is that many Christians find it more palatable to reject observable biological characteristics than face the connotation of sharing traits with other animals.

Apes are simply hominids without tails (but nonetheless with tailbones). You'll find that you don't have a tail but that you have a coccyx (tailbone). Your parents, likewise. Your ancestors, likewise.

I'm simply making a friendly recommendation that you consider acknowledging that you possess the physical characteristics that define the class of "apes" and simultaneously recognize that you are not in any other subset besides "human."

Then, do we also share some characteristics with other animals, like those used in medical research?

 

[IBDaMann]

Then, do we also share some characteristics with other animals, like those used in medical research?

The best answer is "yes, of course" because the class of "apes" is itself within the class of "simians" which is in the class of "primates" which is in the class of "mammals" which is in the class "animals with spines" which is in the class of "animals." I recommend glancing at the biological taxonomy, which creates classes and subclasses and sub-subclasses and sub-sub-subclasses, etc., of all known life based on physical characteristics. Acknowledging membership in a particular class that happens to contain your own class does not translate into any sort of admission that you are somehow a member of some other species that is also in one of your superclasses.

 

[Trumpet]

Yes, fleeing is your best option. Please be careful not to trip over your tail between your legs.

You might consider taking your own advice.

 

[RB 60]

The best answer is "yes, of course" because the class of "apes" is itself within the class of "simians" which is in the class of "primates" which is in the class of "mammals" which is in the class "animals with spines" which is in the class of "animals." I recommend glancing at the biological taxonomy, which creates classes and subclasses and sub-subclasses and sub-sub-subclasses, etc., of all known life based on physical characteristics. Acknowledging membership in a particular class that happens to contain your own class does not translate into any sort of admission that you are somehow a member of some other species that is also in one of your superclasses.

Ok. I just thought that a few parts could be interchangeable.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Science would say that we didn’t actually evolve from apes but that we both evolved from a common ancestor in a process that is essentially the genes of our common ancestor mutating into different forms leading to us and apes.

However the problem with this theory is that scientists cannot explain why the same genes would evolve on differing paths since the common ancestor was located in the same environment.

Another problem is that after that branching of genes from our common ancestors there is zero evidence of it ever happening again.

Statistically that would be an impossibility since if it happens once it should be an ongoing process.

So yes, after that split from the common ancestor each species evolved in their own way but never again did any species genes branch out again to create multiple new species.

There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution

Science would say that we didn’t actually evolve from apes but that we both evolved from a common ancestor in a process that is essentially the genes of our common ancestor mutating into different forms leading to us and apes.

However the problem with this theory is that scientists cannot explain why the same genes would evolve on differing paths since the common ancestor was located in the same environment.

Another problem is that after that branching of genes from our common ancestors there is zero evidence of it ever happening again.

Statistically that would be an impossibility since if it happens once it should be an ongoing process.

So yes, after that split from the common ancestor each species evolved in their own way but never again did any species genes branch out again to create multiple new species.

There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution

Well you got one thing right. Biologist do believe the evidence is extremely compelling that humans did not descend directly from apes but rather had common ancestors.

Your error is attempting to explain the evidence by genetics alone. There’s a significant number of different lines of evidence, besides genetics, which supports evolutionary theory as the vast majority of genes are shared by the two species.

Then there’s the phylogenetic evidence. If humans did evolve directly from Apes then the phylogeny would be a straight line link. However if they shared a common ancestor then the phylogeny between apes and humans would be nested which is what evolutionary theory would predict and is exactly what we find.

Then let’s look at that phylogeny more closely. It goes without saying that phylogenies are created by homologies. When we look at the anatomy of apes and humans we find are large degree of shared homologies between apes and humans but we also have a significant number of homologies that are not shared. This easily explains why the phylogenetic classification are nested which again would be predicted by evolutionary theory and is exactly what we find.

So the large number of homologous anatomical features is easily explained by common descent. That has been predicted by evolutionary theory and has been independently verified a very large number of times from multiple lines of evidence. So if evolutionary theory is wrong then it is incumbent upon you to provide an alternate explanation that fits scientific methodology which proves common decent wrong. No such explanation has been provided that provides a better explanation that can be independently verified from empirically observed evidence. Where as evolutionary theory provides a large number of lines of empirically observed lines of evidence.

So if evolutionary theory and the evidence are correct it would predict that transitional species that are not apes or human but share homologies of both. Well that transitional species evidence is available. One example would be the discovery of Lucy, Australopithecus Agerensis.

Then your statistical analysis is a statistical fallacy. You can’t statistically calculate the probability of an event occurring if that event has occurred. The resulting correlation coefficient would alway be 1.0 or unity as the event has occurred.

So you have shown no holes in evolutionary theory but more accurately you have shown holes your lack of understanding evolutionary theory.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Well you got one thing right. Biologist do believe the evidence is extremely compelling that humans did not descend directly from apes but rather had common ancestors.

Your error is attempting to explain the evidence by genetics alone. There’s a significant number of different lines of evidence, besides genetics, which supports evolutionary theory as the vast majority of genes are shared by the two species.

Then there’s the phylogenetic evidence. If humans did evolve directly from Apes then the phylogeny would be a straight line link. However if they shared a common ancestor then the phylogeny between apes and humans would be nested which is what evolutionary theory would predict and is exactly what we find.

Then let’s look at that phylogeny more closely. It goes without saying that phylogenies are created by homologies. When we look at the anatomy of apes and humans we find are large degree of shared homologies between apes and humans but we also have a significant number of homologies that are not shared. This easily explains why the phylogenetic classification are nested which again would be predicted by evolutionary theory and is exactly what we find.

So the large number of homologous anatomical features is easily explained by common descent. That has been predicted by evolutionary theory and has been independently verified a very large number of times from multiple lines of evidence. So if evolutionary theory is wrong then it is incumbent upon you to provide an alternate explanation that fits scientific methodology which proves common decent wrong. No such explanation has been provided that provides a better explanation that can be independently verified from empirically observed evidence. Where as evolutionary theory provides a large number of lines of empirically observed lines of evidence.

So if evolutionary theory and the evidence are correct it would predict that transitional species that are not apes or human but share homologies of both. Well that transitional species evidence is available. One example would be the discovery of Lucy, Australopithecus Agerensis.

Then your statistical analysis is a statistical fallacy. You can’t statistically calculate the probability of an event occurring if that event has occurred. The resulting correlation coefficient would alway be 1.0 or unity as the event has occurred.

So you have shown no holes in evolutionary theory but more accurately you have shown holes your lack of understanding evolutionary theory.

This is an excellent post, which is sadly wasted on the troll who bears a very strong resemblance to the former poster known as Stretch aka Sister Stench.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The reason I bring it up is that many Christians find it more palatable to reject observable biological characteristics than face the connotation of sharing traits with other animals.

Apes are simply hominids without tails (but nonetheless with tailbones). You'll find that you don't have a tail but that you have a coccyx (tailbone). Your parents, likewise. Your ancestors, likewise.

I'm simply making a friendly recommendation that you consider acknowledging that you possess the physical characteristics that define the class of "apes" and simultaneously recognize that you are not in any other subset besides "human."

That’s like saying humans have blood and so do flies so we must be related

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Well you got one thing right. Biologist do believe the evidence is extremely compelling that humans did not descend directly from apes but rather had common ancestors.

Your error is attempting to explain the evidence by genetics alone. There’s a significant number of different lines of evidence, besides genetics, which supports evolutionary theory as the vast majority of genes are shared by the two species.

Then there’s the phylogenetic evidence. If humans did evolve directly from Apes then the phylogeny would be a straight line link. However if they shared a common ancestor then the phylogeny between apes and humans would be nested which is what evolutionary theory would predict and is exactly what we find.

Then let’s look at that phylogeny more closely. It goes without saying that phylogenies are created by homologies. When we look at the anatomy of apes and humans we find are large degree of shared homologies between apes and humans but we also have a significant number of homologies that are not shared. This easily explains why the phylogenetic classification are nested which again would be predicted by evolutionary theory and is exactly what we find.

So the large number of homologous anatomical features is easily explained by common descent. That has been predicted by evolutionary theory and has been independently verified a very large number of times from multiple lines of evidence. So if evolutionary theory is wrong then it is incumbent upon you to provide an alternate explanation that fits scientific methodology which proves common decent wrong. No such explanation has been provided that provides a better explanation that can be independently verified from empirically observed evidence. Where as evolutionary theory provides a large number of lines of empirically observed lines of evidence.

So if evolutionary theory and the evidence are correct it would predict that transitional species that are not apes or human but share homologies of both. Well that transitional species evidence is available. One example would be the discovery of Lucy, Australopithecus Agerensis.

Then your statistical analysis is a statistical fallacy. You can’t statistically calculate the probability of an event occurring if that event has occurred. The resulting correlation coefficient would alway be 1.0 or unity as the event has occurred.

So you have shown no holes in evolutionary theory but more accurately you have shown holes your lack of understanding evolutionary theory.

Humans share 99% DNA with chimps and 98% with Gorillas

. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidenc... with gorillas,Asian great ape, the orangutan.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

That’s like saying humans have blood and so do flies so we must be related

Ignorant of science aren't you?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

Well you picked a poor choice as a reference.

#1. Luskin and Meyer et-al at the Discovery Institute has been thoroughly debunked on their biological information hypothesis. It doesn’t hold water because it grossly misrepresents how information is processed by biological systems.
#2. Is just simply wrong as fossil evidence supporting evolutionary theory does exist and has for a long time. For example Lucy and Archeopteryx.
#3. This is just plain willfully ignorant.The evidence via molecular biology is DNA and the resulting shared homologies that related organisms share due to DNA.
#4. Natural Selection is inefficient? Well no shit Dick Tracey. Spoken like a true neophyte in biology. What biological systems are? This is laughable as he’s conveniently leaving out the factor of time. The point being that evolutionary theory does not predict that natural selection is efficient. This is tantamount to the tired old dog-cat analogy that creationist use. “Derp, if’s evilution is true how comes dey ain’t no dog-cats?”. Because evolutionary theory doesn’t predict that. In fact it predicts the opposite. In fact the mere existence of dog-cat creature would falsify evolutionary theory but no one has seen one, right? Well same here, from the simplest to the most complex biological systems are substantially less efficient than pure chemical or mechanical systems. This just simply not a part of evolutionary theory.

I mean I could go on dismantling this hack piece by piece but I don’t want to bore the readers with more evidence of the already obvious. This non-biologist doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s a flat out lier or worse. He’s purposefully attempting to undermine the vast mountain of evidence supporting evolutionary theory because he has a religious agenda. Which the later I would say is the obvious answer.

To be honest this is just another tired old creationist god of the gaps argument with some words replaced with jargon.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I understand theory but the accepted belief from most intellectuals is that evolution is a fact and something cannot be a fact when so many unknowns surround it.

Since evolution cannot be fully explained shouldn’t creationism also be considered until science has more answers?

That’s probably because you don’t understand what a scientific theory is. You are using the word theory in the colloquial sense and not the scientific definition of the word. If a scientific theory doesn’t have a factual basis then it cannot be a scientific theory. Evolution by means of natural selection is predicated on three laws of nature. The law of inheritance (the off spring of an organism will be nearly identical to their parents. You only need to look at your own children to see the truth of this fact. The second law of nature is the law of variation. The offspring will have some variation from their parents. Again one only has to look at their own children to see the truth of this fact.

The third law is the law of superfecundancy. That is all species will have more offspring than will survive to sexual maturity. Again this is a very easily observed law of nature. Don’t believe me? Go read this years infant mortality rate.

The three laws of nature are not only as easily observable as gravity but they have as low a probability of being incorrect as gravity.

So no, I don’t think you really do understand what a scientific theory is. At the very least you would have understood that on of the other aspects of a scientific theory is that all scientific knowledge is tentative. There is always a probability that a theory may be wrong even if the probability of being wrong is extremely low.

All the facts of a scientific theory are never completely known. They all have gaps and holes in knowledge. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong it just means we don’t know everything.

Then let us not forget that a scientific theory must not only have a factual basis it must but it must model natural causation and it must, in principle, be falsifiable. So a scientific theory cannot use supernatural causation and be considered science. The falsifiability principle of a scientific theory is hugely important as this is what makes science self correcting. That is if new are discovered that changes our understanding of that theory then that theory must be changed to account for those facts. If the facts do falsify your theoretical model then you need to create a new one which will explain the natural phenomenon you’re trying to model. So yea, evolutionary theory can easily be falsified. Just bring me over a dog-cat and by golly you will have done it.

This is what a true scientific theory is. It provides scientists with an intellectual frame work in which we can model a specific natural phenomenon and make useful predictions that can be tested and independently verified by others. In the case of Evolutionary Theory this theory specifically models speciation (it explains why there is such a vast array of different living species.).

So no, I don’t think you do understand speciation and I will leave with a question to ponder.

If evolutionary theory is a falsified scientific theory then why are almost all the vast number of applied biological sciences predicated partly or wholly on evolutionary theory?