Creation vs. Evolution

[Jay.]

What common ancestor is this?

Answer is in here if you're interested.
evolutionnews.org

 

[TheDrummingKING]

What common ancestor is this?

As far as I know the exact species has yet to be found, but all the evidence points to common ancestry being the case.

Random link 1
Random link 2
Random link 3

 

[Famine]

What common ancestor is this?

Depends on the ape.

For chimps and bonobos (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus), it's an hominini ancestor like Sahelanthropus tchadensis at around 6-7 million years ago. Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) are a little earlier and it's likely Nakalipithecus nakayamai, around 10 million years ago.

Orangutan species (Pongo sp) likely speared off at a common ancestor called Ouranopithecus macedoniensis around 14 million years ago and our most distantly-related ape cousins, the gibbons (Hylobatidae and subspecies), much earlier - well over 15 million years ago, around the time of Kenyapithecus wickeri. Prior to that there's the Proconsul common ancestor between apes and monkeys at about 25 million years.

Though you'll need to ask thesrdic, as he's got far more up to date information than I do - being a paleo, as he is.

 

[LeadFootLiam]

Depends on the ape.

For chimps and bonobos (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus), it's an hominini ancestor like Sahelanthropus tchadensis at around 6-7 million years ago. Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) are a little earlier and it's likely Nakalipithecus nakayamai, around 10 million years ago.

Orangutan species (Pongo sp) likely speared off at a common ancestor called Ouranopithecus macedoniensis around 14 million years ago and our most distantly-related ape cousins, the gibbons (Hylobatidae and subspecies), much earlier - well over 15 million years ago, around the time of Kenyapithecus wickeri. Prior to that there's the Proconsul common ancestor between apes and monkeys at about 25 million years.

Though you'll need to ask thesrdic, as he's got far more up to date information than I do - being a paleo, as he is.

LOL. You know quite a bit about this whole evolution thing. Heres a question: If we evolved from monkeys, how come we dont see people around us today who are still going through this evolving process?

 

[dylansan]

LOL. You know quite a bit about this whole evolution thing. Heres a question: If we evolved from monkeys, how come we dont see people around us today who are still going through this evolving process?

Probably because individual people don't evolve on their own.

If it took 6-7 million years for chimps and humans to branch apart to what we are now, how long do you think it would take for two different species to branch off of modern humans?

Heck, how much change would you even expect so see in 1000 years? Compared to 6 million years, that's not very much change at all. And with factors of the modern world that may make evolution slower (less isolation of gene pools, modern medicine allowing those with unfavorable mutations to survive and pass on genes anyway), there's no reason to expect much change in the human species in such a short time. Certainly not within one generation, and definitely not within one individual (as that isn't even evolution anyway).

 

[Jay.]

LOL. You know quite a bit about this whole evolution thing. Heres a question: If we evolved from monkeys, how come we dont see people around us today who are still going through this evolving process?

Seriously?

They teach the basics of evolution at school.

 

[LeadFootLiam]

If we evolved from monkeys wouldn't they sense that we are their kind? If we actually evloved from apes, why are they hostile towards us?

 

[dylansan]

If we evolved from monkeys wouldn't they sense that we are their kind?

No. Why would they?

If we actually evloved from apes, why are they hostile towards us?

We didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Amazing how quickly you already forgot that.

And anyway, do you think apes know that we share an ancestor? When you see a stranger on the street, can you tell just by looking whether or not they are a distant cousin?

 

[LeadFootLiam]

No. Why would they?
We didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Amazing how quickly you already forgot that.

And anyway, do you think apes know that we share an ancestor? When you see a stranger on the street, can you tell just by looking whether or not they are a distant cousin?

I think evolution theory is completely false.

 

[dylansan]

I gathered that.

But then why bother asking about how evolution works?

"If the world is round, how come we don't fall off the bottom?"

"Well, that's relatively easy to explain, you see-"

"I don't believe the world is round at all."

 

[Jay.]

I think evolution theory is completely false.

No worries, you're entitled to your opinions, though there are some stages of evolution that are no longer theory and can be proven, with evidence, if you ever change your mind there are plenty of available sources supporting this.

 

[niky]

I think evolution theory is completely false.

Considering your comprehension of Evolution is completely inaccurate, that's not surprising. It's like saying "I think Quantum Physics is completely false" simply because you think GPS satellites work by using wormholes.

LOL. You know quite a bit about this whole evolution thing. Heres a question: If we evolved from monkeys, how come we dont see people around us today who are still going through this evolving process?

One: We didn't evolve from monkeys.

And Two: We see people evolving all the time. Lactose tolerance, the mutation that allowed some of our adult ancestors to drink milk, was such a huge success that lactose intolerance is now the exception, rather than the norm.

Then there are mutations like red hair, green eyes. Stuff that would otherwise disappear if they didn't have a positive effect on sexual selection.

Evolution is slow. Really slow. Genetic changes that reflect in changes in physical appearance in for human populations takes dozens of generations. Few populations are small enough for accelerated change to take place (note: The "ostrich-footed" tribe), so don't expect anything dramatic within your lifetime.

 

[Liquid]

mutations like red hair, green eyes.

Oh cool, so I'm a mutant.

Awesome.

 

[Famine]

LOL. You know quite a bit about this whole evolution thing.

It's information available to all without prejudice. You can read it yourself and follow the evidence and methodologies - even copy them and see for yourself - without anyone requiring you to interpret anything...

Heres a question: If we evolved from monkeys

We didn't. Monkeys and apes share a common monkey-ape ancestor, likely Proconsul, from which we both branched off somewhere around 20-25 million years ago.

how come we dont see people around us today who are still going through this evolving process?

Biological evolution doesn't affect the individual, only the species.

Nevertheless, we do see people around us today who are the result of biological evolution. I mean, the very fact we don't all look alike is a fundamental of this, not to mention race, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, inherited diseases and blood type...

If we evolved from monkeys

We didn't. Monkeys and apes share a common monkey-ape ancestor, likely Proconsul, from which we both branched off somewhere around 20-25 million years ago.

If we actually evloved from apes

We didn't. Apes and humans share common human-ape ancestors, the last of which is the homo-pan ancestor - likely Sahelanthropus tchadensis - from which we both branched off somewhere around 6-7 million years ago.

why are they hostile towards us?

Generally speaking, they aren't. I wouldn't go up and tickle a gorilla in the wild, but it's perfectly possible to mingle with them if you temper your human behaviours to be more like theirs.

That said, your question only makes sense if you assume animals ALWAYS attack things that are not their own kind and NEVER attack things that are their own kind - which suggests you're ignorant of any instance of symbiotic relationships in the wild. Added to that, our closest relatives (Pan troglodytes - the chimpanzee) routinely kill newborns - generally males killing the children of other, lesser males.

You might not also be aware of the same behaviour in humans. We kill each other a lot. Hell, if you've ever had a sibling or observed young children (even siblings) playing, you'll see them being hostile to their own kind. Brothers routinely fight and they're as close to "their own kind" as you can get.

Basically your question requires quite a lot of ignorance of basics before you even get to the technicalities of biological evolution that you get wrong.

I think evolution theory is completely false.

Nobody would ever have guessed.

Fortunately science doesn't hide its methods and doesn't require belief. You can read all about it yourself, without a council of elders telling you how to read it and not to think for yourself about it and even if you still don't believe it, it remains the reality.

Evolutionary theory is the only explanation for all known facts, data, observations, laws and processes behind the diversity of life on Earth today.

Oh cool, so I'm a mutant.

Awesome.

It's worse than that... you have a genetic disorder.

All known genetic disorders are classed in a catalogue called OMIM - Online Mendellian Inheritance in Man - according to their location in the genome. Red-hairedness has an OMIM number (#266300) and is thus a genetic disorder...

 

[Liquid]

So what sort of special treatment do I get for that then? I need all kinds of extra help to aid me with my distress and disorder.

Also, I do know that us redheads are more sensitive to pain and therefore require more anesthetic.

 

[Famine]

So what sort of special treatment do I get for that then?

Lobby your MP. The evidence is there.

Also, I do know that us redheads are more sensitive to pain sunlight and therefore require more anesthetic SPF50.

Fun sidenote: I have an hypermobility spectrum disorder that makes me insensitive to (particularly) dental anaesthetics.

I DEMAND FREE MONEY!

 

[Liquid]

Well yes, the sunlight thing too. That goes without saying. Greece is very hot, I went 15 days before getting burnt, which amazed me.

 

[niky]

Amateurs. My bloodline carries the genetic markers for Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome, which is wicked rare and leads to easily-punctured lungs.

Not me, though. Got lucky on the genetic coin flip. You can imagine my relief when my results came back from the testing center...

 

[Carbonox]

But I see you're suffering from a relatively common Double Post Syndrome.

...Guess I got ninja'd or something.

 

[niky]

But I see you're suffering from a relatively common Double Post Syndrome.

...Guess I got ninja'd or something.

Trying to use a 3G wireless connection in the middle of a typhoon will do that.

 

[LeMansAid]

I have an hypermobility spectrum disorder that makes me insensitive

Don't we all.

 

[Harry6784]

I think evolution theory is completely false.

While I agree with that statement, asking such simple questions make us "anti-evolutionist" look bad. There are more than plenty of hard evidence out there that contradicts the fundamental ideas of evolution, but they are conveniently tucked away and rarely mentioned in schools. People in general don't like unanswered questions in life, so naturally we love to make answers as soon as we get our hands on anything we label "evidence". Did anyone watch the news during the Boston bombing? There were hundreds if not thousands of radical stories the media was coming up with about what happened. Almost every single one was based on some real evidence, but assumptions and false information deemed to be true at the time let to some crazy stories that at the time were believable. Bottom line, people want answers immediately, even if those answers might be incorrect. People believed the earth was flat for thousands of years because the question was there, so naturally an "answer" had to exist as well. Ideas that the earth was spherical were around for more than 1500 years before it was "accepted" by the established intellectuals, but bring that up and you are labeled as a crazed lunatic for going against the grain set by the establishment in power. I believe it is no different with evolution. We are tackling one of the biggest questions ever posed as a human race and are trying to find a "believable" answer for our existence. I believe the scientific community are still premature in their search for the answer. While I am a Christian and believe in the Bible and what it says, I do not simply disregard science like many others. There are many "pieces of evidence" that support the theory of evolution, but there are more against it and even more holes we simply don't know the answer to. Gaps in the fossil record that are too large to ignore, no hard evidence that cells came from protobionts and the elusive "missing link" that has yet to be found. All these and many more make me question how a "factual" and "scientific" person can simply disregard all the evidence that contradicts evolution and proceed to defend it in the scientific community.

 

[wfooshee]

You need to actually list one (just one) of these pieces of "evidence contradicting evolution," please. And keep in mind that something posited but not found is not evidence.

One day long ago some dudes watching Uranus and Neptune said, "Hey, we think something else is out there!" The thing they thought was out there had never been seen and was not known to exist. Its lack was not evidence that other observations were incorrect. Indeed the other observations led to its discovery, when Pluto was found in 1930.

So the lack of a discovered "missing link" is not evidence that Evolution is a broken Theory. The term "missing link" itself is a 19th-century sensationalism and not a scientific term. Generally it's used now to describe transitional fossils, or fossils of species that developed from older and died out in favor of newer. If you want "missing links" for human evolution, there are nearly 30 species going back about 7 million years.

 

[orimarc]

There are more than plenty of hard evidence out there that contradicts the fundamental ideas of evolution, but they are conveniently tucked away and rarely mentioned in schools.

First of all: Paragraphs. They make reading easier.

Second: Any source for "hard evidence out there that contradicts the fundamental ideas of evolution"?

People in general don't like unanswered questions in life, so naturally we love to make answers as soon as we get our hands on anything we label "evidence"

Like a book wrote thousands of years ago? That describes a supernatural being creating the first humans out of nowhere?

There are many "pieces of evidence" that support the theory of evolution, but there are more against it and even more holes we simply don't know the answer to. Gaps in the fossil record that are too large to ignore, no hard evidence that cells came from protobionts and the elusive "missing link" that has yet to be found.

Again, source?

Also, the gaps in the fossil record are easy to explain: WE HAVEN'T FOUND ENOUGH FOSSILS.

Why? Probably because most of them are DEEP UNDERGROUND, or even worse, deep underground AT THE BOTTOM OF OCEANS.

 

[BobK]

While I agree with that statement, asking such simple questions make us "anti-evolutionist" look bad. There are more than plenty of hard evidence out there that contradicts the fundamental ideas of evolution, but they are conveniently tucked away and rarely mentioned in schools.

I find it odd that there is "more than plenty" of hard evidence out there that is known to you but not known to any biologist anywhere. Because if this evidence actually exists, the whole Theory of Evolution comes tumbling down. So how about producing it?

Don't try claiming "oh they know about it all right they're just keeping it all hidden" because that's not how science works. At all. Certain other groups may do this, but scientists don't.

People in general don't like unanswered questions in life, so naturally we love to make answers as soon as we get our hands on anything we label "evidence".... Bottom line, people want answers immediately, even if those answers might be incorrect.

And, right there you've put your finger on the origins of all religion.

People believed the earth was flat for thousands of years because the question was there, so naturally an "answer" had to exist as well. Ideas that the earth was spherical were around for more than 1500 years before it was "accepted" by the established intellectuals, but bring that up and you are labeled as a crazed lunatic for going against the grain set by the establishment in power.

Actually, the educated "established intellectuals" have known since classical Greek times that the Earth is round. It was the average uneducated person who thought the world was flat.

I believe it is no different with evolution. We are tackling one of the biggest questions ever posed as a human race and are trying to find a "believable" answer for our existence. I believe the scientific community are still premature in their search for the answer. While I am a Christian and believe in the Bible and what it says, I do not simply disregard science like many others.

Somehow I just knew that was coming.

There are many "pieces of evidence" that support the theory of evolution, but there are more against it and even more holes we simply don't know the answer to. Gaps in the fossil record that are too large to ignore, no hard evidence that cells came from protobionts and the elusive "missing link" that has yet to be found. All these and many more make me question how a "factual" and "scientific" person can simply disregard all the evidence that contradicts evolution and proceed to defend it in the scientific community.

Again, produce just one piece of evidence, should be easy since they outnumber evidence in support of the ToE.

As for your "missing link" comment, I've said this in here before:

I find the whole "missing link" argument to be rather specious, particularly when something like the following happens.

Let's say there was an ancestral species "A" and its modern descendant "B". The creationists will argue there is no proof that "B" evolved from "A"*, where is the missing link? So some anthropologist discovers the remains of a previously undiscovered species "X" which is clearly midway between "A" and "B". The opponents will, instead of accepting the new evidence, will now claim that there are now two missing links, one from "A" to "X",and one from "X" to "B". So instead of agreeing that the argument for "B" being a descendant of "A" is strengthened, they'll claim it's now even weaker!

*actually a creationist will argue that evolution doesn't take place, period.

 

[Carbonox]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/school-creationist-quiz-closing_n_3837183.html

How come God didn't get them the sufficient money?

 

[Liquid]

Huge *snip*

Gaps in the fossil records are remedied by... continuing palaentology! Of course there are gaps right now, there is so much biological history to discover. To say that gaps in the fossil records are somehow contrary to evolutionary theory is tantamount to being content with being halfway up the mountain.

I would be legitimately interested to see some 'hard evidence' against the fundamentals of evolution.

 

[TheCracker]

People in general don't like unanswered questions in life.

Which is exactly why religion is widespread. Go to church on a Sunday so a man with no answers can stop your brain from hurting by reading from an ancient book written by people with even less answers.

 

[Jay.]

Which is exactly why religion is widespread. Go to church on a Sunday so a man with no answers can stop your brain from hurting by reading from an ancient book written by people with even less answers.

Hahaha, spot on Cracker. 👍

 

[Exorcet]

While I agree with that statement, asking such simple questions make us "anti-evolutionist" look bad. There are more than plenty of hard evidence out there that contradicts the fundamental ideas of evolution, but they are conveniently tucked away and rarely mentioned in schools. People in general don't like unanswered questions in life, so naturally we love to make answers as soon as we get our hands on anything we label "evidence". Did anyone watch the news during the Boston bombing? There were hundreds if not thousands of radical stories the media was coming up with about what happened. Almost every single one was based on some real evidence, but assumptions and false information deemed to be true at the time let to some crazy stories that at the time were believable. Bottom line, people want answers immediately, even if those answers might be incorrect. People believed the earth was flat for thousands of years because the question was there, so naturally an "answer" had to exist as well. Ideas that the earth was spherical were around for more than 1500 years before it was "accepted" by the established intellectuals, but bring that up and you are labeled as a crazed lunatic for going against the grain set by the establishment in power. I believe it is no different with evolution. We are tackling one of the biggest questions ever posed as a human race and are trying to find a "believable" answer for our existence. I believe the scientific community are still premature in their search for the answer. While I am a Christian and believe in the Bible and what it says, I do not simply disregard science like many others. There are many "pieces of evidence" that support the theory of evolution, but there are more against it and even more holes we simply don't know the answer to. Gaps in the fossil record that are too large to ignore, no hard evidence that cells came from protobionts and the elusive "missing link" that has yet to be found. All these and many more make me question how a "factual" and "scientific" person can simply disregard all the evidence that contradicts evolution and proceed to defend it in the scientific community.

Where did the universe come from?