[_ Old Earth _] Wrong

[Milk-Drops]

What about animals in the same 'family species'. Like a pet cat cannot breed with a leapord cat, and they are both cats. But only a certain species on its own can make mungrels. I still think every single species is its own that was created.

Unless God planted one single seed of life, like a mustard seed, and in that seed was everything needed to evolve and create everything that is living.

I dont know, i dont have a scientific mind. I like to keep things simple otherwise it gets confusing and i get a sore head.

I understand man. I say don't worry about it for the most part. Its not a big deal if you fully understand it or not. The reason why house cats and leopards can't breed is due to leopards being part of the "big cats" group and they were completely isolated from the house cat breeds that their genetically too differnt. However, there are some house cats that can breed with forest cats and bobcats. Its all good.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I do like science. I find it interesting all these studies and finds, but then i just cannot always trus, and i dont mean all of it, just some things, especially when it comes to analizing bones and fossils and placing million and billion year old dates on them for example.

I understand fully what you mean. I take for granted that I had years of schooling and access to papers, experts and files to help me find and understand the whole issue at hand. Its really hard to convey most of the results and information to people who don't analyze this stuff regularly. This isn't me speaking from an ivory tower, this can be applied to any field. I know some people that find Christianity interesting and call themselves Christians but don't know much about the gospels, epistles, or the writing of Paul outside the popular quotes. A minister or priest would be able to run circles around the casual reader or church goer, but that is because of their immersion in the subject.

I might look up bone and what it is actually made of, and if it can corrode. I would think a bone would be only but dust after 200 million years in the ground. What about teeth, like enamel?, does enamel corrode and how slow is the break down process.

Both bone and teeth corrode and break down over the fossilization process, the fossils we find are actually rocks that have formed in the place of the original bone or teeth. Fossilization is also very rare and requires that the body parts being fossilized be preserved in an almost mummification style way.

 

[john darling]

The larger point seems to be lost on you where there is more then just charts to the theory of evolution.

Sure, there are "more than just charts", but a chart was a specific example being discussed. You excused that example on the basis that it showed a chip rather than an ape, but whether it's a chimp or an ape doesn't matter since most people won't think deeply about the subtle differences. What they WILL see is a teaching that man evolved from a lesser animal.

more along the lines of I'm tired of seeing so many arguments being made by inventing terms out of no where, changing the definitions of terms on the fly, or spinning concepts until the vocabulary is useless. Considering I spent a lot of time making sure my papers and reports were as clear and devoid of jargon and confusing terminology, its a personal pet peeve to read word salad from others.

These things may happen sometimes, but they didn't happen in my comments. You said humans are apes and that's all it means. I suggested there was more meaning to that comment than applying definitions to concepts. You called that semantics but it's not. That's just you choosing not to see more than one meaning.

There could have been multiple eukariotic groups, but the evidence shows that within the Plant, fungul, and animal kingdoms, each has a converging common ancestor.

How does this conform to what you said about ALL organisms evolving from one single celled organism?

I'm arguing from a GENETIC point, combined with what we know about reproduction, gene transfer, and morphology. I have not argued what you are claiming, I'm arguing from a genetic perspective.

Kiwi suggested that having similar physical features does not prove one creature evolved from another. Your counter argument was to talk about genetics, as though physical traits don't relate to genetics.

Its possible.

Do you have any statistics on the odds of all the variety of not only the various organisms in the world, but all the various systems and processes within those organisms, coming from one, single celled organism through random, chance mutations?

I am really indifferent to what you believe. It doesn't bother me one bit. My point is that you seem to misunderstand what the theory of evolution even is. In science, you have define your terms, and explain/ demonstrate your assertions. You would have to define what you mean by spiritual. Then you would have to make comparisons and show the differences you claim exist. Then explain why and show how you came to the conclusion.

All humans have an understanding that there is more to life than just survival. We ask questions about where we came from and where we are going. We ask why and how along with a strong desire to get answers to those questions. We are able to think and reason beyond instinct and beyond our personal perspectives.

How did those things evolve?

How about you stop trying to tell others what their perspective is and focus on defining your own position?

There is a creator or there is not. If there is a creator then there is intelligent design in what was created. If there is no creator, then there is no intelligence or purpse and all that we have now is just a serious of random, chance accidents. You can't have both at the same time. Evolution can only be theistic or atheistic. This isn't me telling others what their perspective should be. It's me recognizing a simple truth.

For example, if you say there is a pink unicorn who created everything, I have a choice to either believe that or not. Someone presenting me with that choice is not "telling others what their perspective is". You either say, "yes I agree", "no, I don't agree", or "I don't know".

Or I could not accept your definition and not fall into your false dichotomy because I'm not going to alow you to define other people's position as you see fit.

Creator or not creator . It's actually a pretty simple concept. You could even say you're unsure if you wanted to, but this thing about a "false dichotomy" sounds more reactionary than scientific.

Evolution starts taking place once self replicating systems come about.

When did self replicating start?

At this point, I'm quite sure you are flat out ignoring that I have been arguing from a genetics stand point,

Nope, because physical traits (like arms, legs, ears etc) are a part of genetics, too. I'm open to the possibility of misunderstandings but so far I've not seen an explanation which clarifies any misunderstandings on this.

 

[Barbarian]

Sure, there are "more than just charts", but a chart was a specific example being discussed. You excused that example on the basis that it showed a chip rather than an ape, but whether it's a chimp or an ape doesn't matter since most people won't think deeply about the subtle differences. What they WILL see is a teaching that man evolved from a lesser animal.

Chimpanzees are apes. And evolutionary theory doesn't say that man evolved from a "lesser animal." That has no meaning in science. We are apes, because we are genetically more like chimps than chimps are like other apes.

Milk-Drops said: ↑
There could have been multiple eukariotic groups, but the evidence shows that within the Plant, fungul, and animal kingdoms, each has a converging common ancestor.

How does this conform to what you said about ALL organisms evolving from one single celled organism?

It was first discovered by Linnaeus in the 1600s. A nested hierarchy of species, like a family tree. So while plants, fungi, animals, and protists all have common ancestors, they all had a common eukaryote ancestor, which was the ancestor of all four kingdoms.

Kiwi suggested that having similar physical features does not prove one creature evolved from another.

This is perhaps the greatest error creationists make. They conflate analogous organs (similar function, but not genetically or anatomically similar) with homologous organs (perhaps having different functions, but being genetically and anatomically similar).

The former does not indicate common descent, so mosquitos and birds have analogous wings, while birds and whales have homlogous forelimbs, indicating a common ancestor much more recently than either of them have with insects.

Your counter argument was to talk about genetics, as though physical traits don't relate to genetics.

Turns out, we have a way to check that. Several ways. Would you like to learn how we know these things?

Do you have any statistics on the odds of all the variety of not only the various organisms in the world, but all the various systems and processes within those organisms, coming from one, single celled organism through random, chance mutations?

By chance, close to 0.0. By random mutations and natural selection, pretty much a sure thing.

All humans have an understanding that there is more to life than just survival.

That's the essential difference between man and other animals. God gave each of us an immortal soul directly. And while we still have our animal body, we also have that soul, which makes all the difference.

How did those things evolve?

Perhaps they didn't. Would it offend you if God made us capable of fellowship with Him, by natural means instead of a miracle?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sure, there are "more than just charts", but a chart was a specific example being discussed.

I already expressed my position on the chart and gave full reasoning on why. Since we both disagree on the chart itself, there is no reason to continue circling back to it.

You excused that example on the basis that it showed a chimp rather than an ape, but whether it's a chimp or an ape doesn't matter since most people won't think deeply about the subtle differences. What they WILL see is a teaching that man evolved from a lesser animal.

So because most people don't understand human lineage, I shouldn't point out flaws because it makes no difference to you? No I think I'm going to point out things that are wrong. Are you saying I should defend something I don't accept?

These things may happen sometimes, but they didn't happen in my comments.

I think you are missing the part where you keep trying to get me to defend a chart that is wrong based on the theory of Evolution.

You said humans are apes and that's all it means.

Yes.

I suggested there was more meaning to that comment than applying definitions to concepts.

Ok, are you going to explain why, or are you going to try and get me to defend the chart again?

You called that semantics but it's not. That's just you choosing not to see more than one meaning.

You keep asserting deeper or more meanings to words and concepts, but you never explain or define your meanings. You keep claiming that it is all perspective, but have yet to define a perspective you are trying to argue from. That is semantic. Define your position or move on.

How does this conform to what you said about ALL organisms evolving from one single celled organism?

Because my position is more complex than you are trying to frame it as. You asked for clarification and asked if something is possible. Are you looking for a specific all encompassing answer or something?

Kiwi suggested that having similar physical features does not prove one creature evolved from another. Your counter argument was to talk about genetics, as though physical traits don't relate to genetics.

And you keep skipping my full explanation. If you keep ignoring the repeated statements about lineage, then I am quite convinced you don't know much about genetics. Why do you keep leaving out the points I make about genes, gene groups, DNA, protein strands, and RNA?

Do you have any statistics on the odds of all the variety of not only the various organisms in the world, but all the various systems and processes within those organisms, coming from one, single celled organism through random, chance mutations?

No, because it would be a pointless number that doesn't effect the outcome.

All humans have an understanding that there is more to life than just survival.

What evidence do you have to back this up?

We ask questions about where we came from and where we are going. We ask why and how along with a strong desire to get answers to those questions. We are able to think and reason beyond instinct and beyond our personal perspectives.

None of this effects whether or not the theory of evolution is true.

How did those things evolve?

What? Ideas? Ideas are formed through pyschological processes, not by biological evolution. That is a question more apt for a psychologists than a biologist. A biologists could explain how we are capable of asking such questions if they are knowledgeable about how the human brain works. A psychologists and historian might point to how human society has made it possible to wonder about such thing.s

There is a creator or there is not. If there is a creator then there is intelligent design in what was created.

Nah, deists disagree with your assertion because a creator could have just hit start and walked away and had no hand in the universes course since then.

If there is no creator, then there is no intelligence or purpose and all that we have now is just a serious of random, chance accidents.

No because accident would imply meaning, if there was no intentional meaning , then there can't be an accident if there was no intentional meaning.

You can't have both at the same time.

You are correct, however there are more options than what you mentioned.

Evolution can only be theistic or atheistic.

Its could also be nihilistic, shamanistic, deistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, or could be multidimensional and include aspects we can't even conceive yet.

This isn't me telling others what their perspective should be. It's me recognizing a simple truth.

No you are telling people what they believe and not listening to what they say and getting short when I don't follow your paint by numbers argument style. Listen to people, back up your position, and inquire about what people say instead of trying to beat them to it.

For example, if you say there is a pink unicorn who created everything, I have a choice to either believe that or not. Someone presenting me with that choice is not "telling others what their perspective is". You either say, "yes I agree", "no, I don't agree", or "I don't know".

Sure, but I don't hold the argument you keep trying to fit me into, and you are getting frustrated.

Creator or not creator . It's actually a pretty simple concept.

Not really, and your ignorance on genetics and argument don't help you.

You could even say you're unsure if you wanted to, but this thing about a "false dichotomy" sounds more reactionary than scientific.

Actually its a logical fallacy because the 2 options you are trying to bring to the table are filled with baggage and ignore several factors. I don't have to accept your argument, I can choose to defend my own.

When did self replicating start?

I don't know. That isn't my field.

Nope, because physical traits (like arms, legs, ears etc) are a part of genetics, too. I'm open to the possibility of misunderstandings but so far I've not seen an explanation which clarifies any misunderstandings on this.

Ok, the problem I think you are having is that you aren't familiar enough with genetics to get what I'm talking about. Yes, physical characteristics are effected by genetics, but gene sequences denote their development and their ability to be passed on. Eppigenetics effects the minute development of physical characteristics. In Phylogeny specific gene sequences and mutations can be traced back as far as we have testable samples. When a gene or sequence is identified, they are easy to note and compare. Since Mendel discovered that genes transfer through reproduction and mutations happen during the copying from organism to the next, we can track the origins of mutations back through the generations. Retroviruses are also noted in genetic lineages due to their predictable patterns and attacking specific genes. Retroviruses are known to be passes on through lineage.

Basically we can see the origins of the spinal chord and when we start comparing the genetic differences of lineages, we can see how vertebrates have fanned out and how they relate to one another. In phylogeny organisms are then grouped based on their gene sequences. Linnaeus originally based Taxonomy on morphology ( physical characteristics) and came up with the kingdoms of Animals and plants. Through genetic research there has been an expansion from 2 kingdoms to 5. Animals, Plants, fungus, bacteria, and Archea. It has also been discovered that Dinosaurs are actually the ancestors to modern birds and that Reptiles have more in common with birds, than amphibians.

Physical characteristics play a role, but only when it gets down to the point where the genetic pool is so mudy or unknown that that is all we have to work with, however there is constant refinement of techniques and more is being learned every day.

 

[john darling]

chance, close to 0.0. By random mutations and natural selection, pretty much a sure thing.

What's the difference you see between chance and random?

And evolutionary theory doesn't say that man evolved from a "lesser animal." That has no meaning in science.

Science doesn't make distinctions between lesser and greater?

We are apes, because we are genetically more like chimps than chimps are like other apes.

This seems to be more about meanings and definitions and it really depends on how and why these various words are used. For example, we are mammals, which includes monkeys, mice, ocelots etc. Because this term is so generic and inclusive of so many different animals, there isn't much more being communicated than what the word actually means.

But that is not the case with "Humans are apes" because it at least implies evolution from a lesser animal. Ohhh wait, I just browsed through two dictionaries for "ape" and this is what I found:
1. any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all
2. someone who copies the words or behavior of another
3. person who resembles a nonhuman primate

1. any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (great ape) which includes the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (lesser ape) which includes the gibbon and siamang.
2. (loosely) any primate except humans.

I was just assuming that this "humans are apes" thing was some kind of established definition based on the surety with which the claim was made but clearly "non human" and "except humans" are listed in the average dictionary when defining the word "ape". So, where are you guys getting this "humans are apes" thing? And if your definition really IS right, then why are the dictionaries getting it wrong?

Anyway, the point is that there IS a lot of room for something MORE than a simple "scientific definition" being communicated here when you claim "apes are humans" (especially when it turns out your definition may not be all that scientific after all).

What seems to happen is that people invent these terms and definitions, call it science and then if anyone questions it later people say something like, "so you want to argue with science, huh"? But, according to the logic of the "one common ancestor" theory you could say "humans are mice", too (apparently humans share 97.5% DNA with mice). Apparently the similarity between humans and chimps is 98.5-99%. Roughly a 1% difference between chimps and mice when comparing their DNA to humans.

It's possible one could say "Humans are (insert any other organism here)", right? How much DNA similarity is necessary before a humans can be equated to another animal? What is the cut-off percentage? Is there an established scientific standard for that cut-off point and if so, what is the basis for that standard?

Perhaps they didn't. Would it offend you if God made us capable of fellowship with Him, by natural means instead of a miracle?

All creation is a miracle. This thing about "natural" and "super natural" are terms we humans invented to describe what we can and cannot understand, but up there from God's perspective everything he does is natural no matter how super it may look to us.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on the likelihood of evolution:

chance, close to 0.0. By random mutations and natural selection, pretty much a sure thing.

What's the difference you see between chance and random?

The difference, is that random mutations arrive by chance, but natural selection then acts on random mutations to increase fitness in an evolving population. This is directly observed. Mere randomness won't do it. You need random mutations plus natural selection.

Barbarian said: ↑
And evolutionary theory doesn't say that man evolved from a "lesser animal." That has no meaning in science.

Science doesn't make distinctions between lesser and greater?

There are no "lesser animals" in evolutionary theory. That's a holdover from the old "great chain of being" idea.

Barbarian observes;
We are apes, because we are genetically more like chimps than chimps are like other apes.

This seems to be more about meanings and definitions

Nope. It's measurable and testable. Humans and chimps form a related group, within the other apes. Of course, apes form a group within the mammals, because they are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to any other mammal.

For example, we are mammals, which includes monkeys, mice, ocelots etc.

And as evolutionary theory predicted, all mammals are more closely related to each other than any of them are to any other sort of animal. See how it works? Just like a family tree. And we know it marks descent, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. It was unknown to Darwin, but it precisely confirms his theory.

Because this term is so generic and inclusive of so many different animals, there isn't much more being communicated than what the word actually means.

As you see, that's wrong. It's a very accurate and effective way of testing common descent.

But that is not the case with "Humans are apes" because it at least implies evolution from a lesser animal.

Nope. "Lesser" has no meaning in that context, in biology.

Ohhh wait, I just browsed through two dictionaries for "ape" and this is what I found:

Most dictionaries are for non-technical usage. In science, we use precise definitions. Let's see...

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia and distinguished by a wide degree of freedom at the shoulder joint indicating the influence of brachiation. There are two main branches: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.

• Lesser apes (Hylobatidae) include four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon, and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.

• The Hominidae include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the family is collectively described as the great apes.[3][4][5][6] There are two extant species in the orangutan genus (Pongo), two species in the gorilla genus, and a single extant species Homo sapiens in the human genus (Homo). Chimpanzees and bonobos are closely related to each other and they represent the two species in the genus Pan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape


Hominidae

The hominids are the members of the biological family Hominidae (the great apes), which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/hominidae.htm

Chimps, gorillas, humans, and orangutans make up the family Hominidae; gibbons are separated as the closely related Hylobatidae.
http://www.primates.com/primate/hominidae.html

I was just assuming that this "humans are apes" thing was some kind of established definition based on the surety

Turns out you were right about that.

why are the dictionaries getting it wrong?

Not knowing what one is talking about can be a huge disadvantage.

But, according to the logic of the "one common ancestor" theory you could say "humans are mice", too (apparently humans share 97.5% DNA with mice).

You've been misled about that. About 75% of mouse genes have analogues in humans.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112

The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows that our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 per cent of our DNA sequence.
http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020730.html

Which is about what you'd expect. This is different than raw DNA hybridization, which compares complete DNA rather than specific genes, but that also confirms evolutionary theory. Would you like to see that?

Barbarian said: ↑
Perhaps they didn't. Would it offend you if God made us capable of fellowship with Him, by natural means instead of a miracle?

All creation is a miracle. This thing about "natural" and "super natural" are terms we humans invented to describe what we can and cannot understand,

What we can know by gathering evidence and what we can't. We can know about nature, because God made it so. And we can investigate things like evolution, while things like Heaven or God lie outside of science.

Those who say God never changes are usually the most blind,

It's an attribute of being eternal and perfect. So He doesn't change.[/quote]

 

[john darling]

So because most people don't understand human lineage, I shouldn't point out flaws because it makes no difference to you?

We all have flaws when it comes to understanding. What I'm suggesting is that you discuss from this point of view rather assuming people will have the same understanding as you. For example, here is a excerpt from the wiki page on apes:

"Some or all hominoids are also called "apes". However, the term "ape" is used in several different senses. It has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for any tailless primate with a humanlike appearance.[7] Thus the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape" to indicate its lack of a tail. Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[3] or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid".

The word is used in different ways by different people. This explanation is even written is such a way that there is plenty of room for biologists themselves to disagree on how inclusive the word should be.

In my response to Barbarian I listed a couple dictionary definitions which actually specified that apes do NOT include humans.

And yet you take a fairly hard position that people are somehow flawed if they don't come to the same conclusion as you even though there is still plenty of room for disagreement on this issue.

Because my position is more complex than you are trying to frame it as. You asked for clarification and asked if something is possible. Are you looking for a specific all encompassing answer or something?

You already gave the all encompassing answer. You said ALL organisms evolved from "a" common ancestor, meaning a single celled organism. Maybe the first or second or third or 1000th single celled organism died before a "complex" enough group of proteins finally managed to organize themselves in a single cell which was sufficiently prepared to kick-off evolution. How many chances gathers of the various thousands of proteins would it take before a cell was formed with the ability to replicate? And what are the chances that all those cells, the 2, and then the 4 etc survived long enough to become a more complex organism through yet another random mutation in one of those cells? After that first reproduction, if those cells for some reason died and the process had to start all over again through some other chance happening of proteins coming together into a single celled organism capable of reproduction, your theory breaks.

According to what you've said, evolution started the moment the first cell reproduced and ALL life came from that very first reproduction (the common ancestor), meaning in order for your assertion to be consistent, no other life could have come from any other spontaneously occurring cells anywhere else in the world (or the common ancestor thing would become invalid).

No, because it would be a pointless number that doesn't effect the outcome.

"That would be a pointless number". Is that what a scientist would say?

What evidence do you have to back this up?

Have you ever met a human who did not understand that there is something more to life than just eating, drinking, and otherwise surviving? If so, what were the circumstances?

None of this effects whether or not the theory of evolution is true.

If things like asking "why are we here" did not come from evolution, then where DID it come from? Try answering that question and you'll understand how it's relevant.

What? Ideas? Ideas are formed through pyschological processes, not by biological evolution.

If "psychological processes" didn't come evolution, where DID they come from?

Nah, deists disagree with your assertion because a creator could have just hit start and walked away and had no hand in the universes course since then.

Are we talking now about what "could" have happened? That's fine, though in that case there are literally an infinite number of possibilities in which case all you've really done here is speculate. Sure, the creator could have done it any way he wanted including ways we don't even understand, but he chose to hit start and to stick around.

Actually its a logical fallacy because the 2 options you are trying to bring to the table are filled with baggage and ignore several factors. I don't have to accept your argument, I can choose to defend my own.

Haha yeah I have noticed that talk about God with atheistic evolutionists usually does include a lot of baggage. XD

Anyway, it's not a logical fallacy. You just agree, disagree, or abstain. It's really quite simple. I believe there is a creator. I believe there is no creator. I don't know. Or maybe a 4th option like, "I believe there is some guiding force but not the same "creator" you suggest".

For example, if someone asks me if I want pizza or hot dogs, I don't accuse them of a logical fallacy because I really want chicken. I just say I'd prefer chicken.

In Phylogeny specific gene sequences and mutations can be traced back as far as we have testable samples.

Thanks for the explanation. How far back to the testable samples go?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Science doesn't make distinctions between lesser and greater?

Lesser and greater is dependent on environment. Humans are better equipped to large group problem solving than a fly. However Tigers are greater at strength and ferocity than humans. In Biology all organisms fit niches in their environment, the selection pressures tend to weed out those that don't.

This seems to be more about meanings and definitions and it really depends on how and why these various words are used. For example, we are mammals, which includes monkeys, mice, ocelots etc. Because this term is so generic and inclusive of so many different animals, there isn't much more being communicated than what the word actually means.

Correct.

But that is not the case with "Humans are apes" because it at least implies evolution from a lesser animal. Ohhh wait, I just browsed through two dictionaries for "ape" and this is what I found:
1. any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all
2. someone who copies the words or behavior of another
3. person who resembles a nonhuman primate

1. any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (great ape) which includes the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (lesser ape) which includes the gibbon and siamang.
2. (loosely) any primate except humans.

I was just assuming that this "humans are apes" thing was some kind of established definition based on the surety with which the claim was made but clearly "non human" and "except humans" are listed in the average dictionary when defining the word "ape". So, where are you guys getting this "humans are apes" thing? And if your definition really IS right, then why are the dictionaries getting it wrong?

Dictionaries cover various definitions used in various contexts. Since we are talking about the theory of Evolution, which means we are talking about biology. In Biology the first definition of the second grouping is what is used in Taxonomy, Phylogeny, Genetics, etc.

Dictionaries cover many different definitions in various contexts, Ape in biology means what barbarian and me are talking about. Ape in common vernacular can mean a number of things. That is why its very important to try and familiarize yourself with the jargon before diving deep into any issue or field of study. Words can have different meaning colloquially.

Anyway, the point is that there IS a lot of room for something MORE than a simple "scientific definition" being communicated here when you claim "apes are humans" (especially when it turns out your definition may not be all that scientific after all).

How about you stop trying to demand others act in specific ways before telling us we have to cater to your demands?

What seems to happen is that people invent these terms and definitions, call it science and then if anyone questions it later people say something like, "so you want to argue with science, huh"? But, according to the logic of the "one common ancestor" theory you could say "humans are mice", too (apparently humans share 97.5% DNA with mice). Apparently the similarity between humans and chimps is 98.5-99%. Roughly a 1% difference between chimps and mice when comparing their DNA to humans.

I think the real problem is that you walked into something you barely understand or don't understand. Instead of stepping back and asking questions so you can understand, you are making demands that we cater to you. No, its frustrating to learn that you don't fully understand something, but a good thing is we can point to you where you can do the research and learn about it. Science is a systematic way of testing and collecting data. Its not a conspiracy theory, but it is complex and filled with a lot of information that takes a lot of time to dig through.

It's possible one could say "Humans are (insert any other organism here)", right?

No, here is where my specialization comes in. Taxonomy and phylogeny are based around lineage. When a great enough change is identified to have started a rift, a new branch is named. The reason why humans are grouped with apes? Humans come from the same lineage. Its the same reason why humans are considered bipedal, primates, omnivorous, mammalian, vertebrate, animals, Life. There is even more in the lineage, but that should suffice.

How much DNA similarity is necessary before a humans can be equated to another animal?

Humans on a species level can't be considered another animal. What is looked for is the key spots in our DNA that shows lineage.

What is the cut-off percentage? Is there an established scientific standard for that cut-off point and if so, what is the basis for that standard?

There isn't a specific standard for percentage. As I stated it has more to do with lineage than actual percentage. Usually a distinction is made when the organism become isolated from being breeding capable, but there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Milk-Drops]

We all have flaws when it comes to understanding. What I'm suggesting is that you discuss from this point of view rather assuming people will have the same understanding as you. For example, here is a excerpt from the wiki page on apes:
The word is used in different ways by different people. This explanation is even written is such a way that there is plenty of room for biologists themselves to disagree on how inclusive the word should be.

I understand now what you are getting at. I spent a lot of time with this information and will admit I get caught up in it, but I will say that in the field I worked/ studied in Ape was the general term that included humans.

In my response to Barbarian I listed a couple dictionary definitions which actually specified that apes do NOT include humans.

I addressed that in my previous post.

And yet you take a fairly hard position that people are somehow flawed if they don't come to the same conclusion as you even though there is still plenty of room for disagreement on this issue.

That attitude comes more from working in positions where my definitions and assertions needed to be documented and defined specifically. In the sciences everything is up for criticism, so everything needs to be carefully defined or at least referenced. Its a very systematic way of talking and addressing issues and if you think I'm bad talk to math majors and engineers.

You already gave the all encompassing answer. You said ALL organisms evolved from "a" common ancestor, meaning a single celled organism. Maybe the first or second or third or 1000th single celled organism died before a "complex" enough group of proteins finally managed to organize themselves in a single cell which was sufficiently prepared to kick-off evolution. How many chances gathers of the various thousands of proteins would it take before a cell was formed with the ability to replicate? And what are the chances that all those cells, the 2, and then the 4 etc survived long enough to become a more complex organism through yet another random mutation in one of those cells? After that first reproduction, if those cells for some reason died and the process had to start all over again through some other chance happening of proteins coming together into a single celled organism capable of reproduction, your theory breaks.

The problem is you are no longer talking about Evolution. Now you are talking about where life came from. Evolution doesn't address where life came from, but how it adapts, survives, and branches out. What you are addressing now is called Abiogenesis. Its a hypothesis in biochemistry about how life arouse from more primitive cells. That is the big problem here, you are addressing a different theory from what I am defending.

According to what you've said, evolution started the moment the first cell reproduced

No, I actually stated that we share an ancestor, that doesn't mean that I believe that the very first self replicating cell equals our ancestor. This is what I meant when I said you are trying to shove an argument down my throat. You didn't ask me for clarification if I believe X, you are assuming I believe X.
Currently through my studies and through the research I've done it is logical to hypothesize that there was a singular ancestor for all animals and the same could be said for Plants and fungus, I don't know enough about the 2 protista branches to make such a statement. The reasoning is based on observed reproduction methods and genetic research on these groups. More research is needed to fully flesh out this explanation.

and ALL life came from that very first reproduction (the common ancestor), meaning in order for your assertion to be consistent, no other life could have come from any other spontaneously occurring cells anywhere else in the world (or the common ancestor thing would become invalid).

What principles have you based this off of?

"That would be a pointless number". Is that what a scientist would say?

Yes, if you pull a bunch of various stats out of no where and ask for the sake of asking without a real way to measure the numbers in a proper context, the data would be useless. Especially since we don't know a context to draw the stats from, some of those stats would have to be pulled out of thin air.

Have you ever met a human who did not understand that there is something more to life than just eating, drinking, and otherwise surviving? If so, what were the circumstances?

I've met objectiveists, nihilists, Hindus, Sihks, Christians, Muslims, Humanists, etc. There are many different beliefs and each hold varying different Importance on some of the stuff you mentioned. However this wouldn't impact actual meaning. Nor am I saying I have the actual meaning.

If things like asking "why are we here" did not come from evolution, then where DID it come from?

A non evolutionary process.

If "psychological processes" didn't come evolution, where DID they come from?

Not evolution. Evolution only effects biological systems.

Are we talking now about what "could" have happened? That's fine, though in that case there are literally an infinite number of possibilities in which case all you've really done here is speculate. Sure, the creator could have done it any way he wanted including ways we don't even understand, but he chose to hit start and to stick around.

Finally you made a solid assertion that isn't some how a dodge. You are claiming God is around, how do you know?

Haha yeah I have noticed that talk about God with atheistic evolutionists usually does include a lot of baggage. XD

Who's an evolutionist and what definition are you using?

Anyway, it's not a logical fallacy. You just agree, disagree, or abstain. It's really quite simple. I believe there is a creator. I believe there is no creator. I don't know. Or maybe a 4th option like, "I believe there is some guiding force but not the same "creator" you suggest".

Ok, I take abstain.

Thanks for the explanation. How far back to the testable samples go?

Depends on the lineage.

 

[john darling]

Lesser and greater is dependent on environment. Humans are better equipped to large group problem solving than a fly. However Tigers are greater at strength and ferocity than humans. In Biology all organisms fit niches in their environment, the selection pressures tend to weed out those that don't.

That's interesting. So, you're suggesting that, in the correct context, there IS a greater or lesser. My assertion was that humans did not evolve from a lesser animal. In the context of that comment, what do you think I meant by "lesser"? I'm not asking you to prove or defend anything, but just your opinion on what you think I meant.

Ape in common vernacular can mean a number of things.

Words can have different meaning colloquially.

"Humans are apes" is vernacular which is, apparently, uncommon enough that the average dictionary does NOT presume as factual. Not only that, but the average dictionary actually contradicts the statement by specifying that "ape" does not include humans.

Humans on a species level can't be considered another animal. What is looked for is the key spots in our DNA that shows lineage.

I asked "How much DNA similarity is necessary before a humans can be equated to another animal"? Your response does not answer this question.

There isn't a specific standard for percentage. As I stated it has more to do with lineage than actual percentage.

I'm quoting this because I reference it in a response below.

Usually a distinction is made when the organism become isolated from being breeding capable, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Isolated from being "breeding capable"? What does that mean in practical terms? Can you give an example?

The reason why humans are grouped with apes? Humans come from the same lineage.

Same lineage? Aren't you just noting similarities in DNA (which you said is based on "no specific standard") and presuming this represents a "lineage"? How does a scientist come to such a significant conclusion based on no specific standard?

 

[john darling]

I understand now what you are getting at. I spent a lot of time with this information and will admit I get caught up in it, but I will say that in the field I worked/ studied in Ape was the general term that included humans.

Thanks for clarifying. ^.^

Its a very systematic way of talking and addressing issues and if you think I'm bad talk to math majors and engineers.

Haha nah, they can't be as bad as so-called Christians.

The problem is you are no longer talking about Evolution. Now you are talking about where life came from.

I am still talking about evolution, but I can see that it's becoming a bit convoluted so I'll try to clarify. My comments are based on these two quotes from you.

I did reference a single celled organism popping into existance, but the emphasis of doing so was not the popping into existance itself, but rather the chances of this cell, once it already exists, going on to spawn all organisms which ever existed, as you suggested (i.e. all life came from a common ancestor).

Any number of crude or primitive cells can come and go, but once an advanced enough cell comes into being (through whatever means) which is capable of multiplying (i.e. the start of evolution), then in order for your theory to be correct, that cell or any of it's offspring MUST survive. In other words, if that cell or any of it's offspring die off then your theory breaks even if another cell pops into existance later and does survive because "all" life will not have come from the common ancestor which started evolution.

Anyway, I'm not sure how significant this point is. I'm mostly just trying to understand your position on this in a way which is consistent.

I side with those the hold the concept that all organisms descended from a common ancestor.

Evolution starts taking place once self replicating systems come about.

No, I actually stated that we share an ancestor, that doesn't mean that I believe that the very first self replicating cell equals our ancestor.

You said all organisms came from a common ancestor and you said evolution starts with replication. If "all" organisms came from a common ancestor and evolution starts with replication, then yes, the common ancestor must be the very first single cell capable of replication. Otherwise, all does not really mean all in which case your conclusion seems a little too flexible based on how it needs to be manipulated according to whichever challenge comes it's way.

If you want to rephrase what you've said that's fine, but I don't think it's fair to the discussion to do so on the basis that you didn't say what you did say.

Yes, if you pull a bunch of various stats out of no where and ask for the sake of asking without a real way to measure the numbers in a proper context, the data would be useless. Especially since we don't know a context to draw the stats from, some of those stats would have to be pulled out of thin air.

Well, I'm not asking for the sake of asking and I'm not suggesting that anyone pull stats from nowhere. But I do think it's interesting that you are talking about needing to pull stats out of thin air before we can decide what are the chances of all life coming from a single, common ancestor (which is what I was asking about). I guess I'm the only one appreciating the irony here.

A non evolutionary process.

Like what?

Not evolution. Evolution only effects biological systems.

And yet, I'm fairly sure you'd say animal behavior can be attributed to evolution. At what point do you distinguish between "biological processes" and "other" when it comes to human behavior? Is the behavior of an ape part of evolution?

You are claiming God is around, how do you know?

You yourself said that human behavior falls outside of the process of the formation of humanity. If not from God, where would YOU say this behavior came from?

Who's an evolutionist and what definition are you using?

What is atheistic evolution? Random mutations causing change to dna. Theistic evolution? Guided mutations causing change to dna. Other evolution? Whatever kind of evolution people want to believe it is.

Who is an evolutionist? Probably whoever supports whichever kind of evolution they think is accurate.

Ok, I take abstain.

Fair enough.

Depends on the lineage.

How about the lineage of the common ancestor?

 

[Milk-Drops]

I did reference a single celled organism popping into existance, but the emphasis of doing so was not the popping into existance itself, but rather the chances of this cell, once it already exists, going on to spawn all organisms which ever existed, as you suggested (i.e. all life came from a common ancestor).

Untill we have the organism to examine, we don't have much to go on when it comes to chance or stats.

Any number of crude or primitive cells can come and go, but once an advanced enough cell comes into being (through whatever means) which is capable of multiplying (i.e. the start of evolution), then in order for your theory to be correct, that cell or any of it's offspring MUST survive. In other words, if that cell or any of it's offspring die off then your theory breaks even if another cell pops into existence later and does survive because "all" life will not have come from the common ancestor which started evolution.

There are some problems I'd like to address. Its not my theory, its the theory I'm accepting based on the evidence that I have learned through research and study. Its not my theory. Also, the very first replicating isn't necessarily the common ancestor since we don't know how common it could have been for cells to develop replication..

Anyway, I'm not sure how significant this point is. I'm mostly just trying to understand your position on this in a way which is consistent.

My views can be changed by evidence, so I'm wondering what you mean by my position being consistent?

You said all organisms came from a common ancestor and you said evolution starts with replication.

Yes

If "all" organisms came from a common ancestor and evolution starts with replication, then yes, the common ancestor must be the very first single cell capable of replication.

No, because there is no evidence indicating that the first replicating cell was the ancestor to all living organisms. Evolution starts with replication, but replication may have happened multiple times. We simply don't have the evidence to suggest if the first replicating cell was the ancestor.

Otherwise, all does not really mean all in which case your conclusion seems a little too flexible based on how it needs to be manipulated according to whichever challenge comes it's way.

Or it could be that I'm being asked to give easy to understand examples, then getting scrutinized. Its seems like this is a gotcha game.

If you want to rephrase what you've said that's fine, but I don't think it's fair to the discussion to do so on the basis that you didn't say what you did say.

I feel like this is a game where you get to ask me to keep clarifying but you don't have to do the same. Here's the gist. Tell me you education level when it comes to biology and then I'll know how to phrase my statements.

Well, I'm not asking for the sake of asking and I'm not suggesting that anyone pull stats from nowhere. But I do think it's interesting that you are talking about needing to pull stats out of thin air before we can decide what are the chances of all life coming from a single, common ancestor (which is what I was asking about). I guess I'm the only one appreciating the irony here.

You've lost me. You asked me what the stats are, I asked you to clarify and that your statement was vauge, and now I'm being ironic because I won't play the stats game? No, make a statement or move on.

Like what?

Make a claim and we'll see.

And yet, I'm fairly sure you'd say animal behavior can be attributed to evolution.

How about you ask directly and not play this catty game.

At what point do you distinguish between "biological processes" and "other" when it comes to human behavior? Is the behavior of an ape part of evolution?

We aren't going off on anymore tangents until you clarify your education level.

You yourself said that human behavior falls outside of the process of the formation of humanity.

Post the context now please. Stop trying to contort my words into the narrative you want to argue with.

If not from God, where would YOU say this behavior came from?

I'm not a psychologist so I'm not going to make a clarifying statement.

What is atheistic evolution? Random mutations causing change to dna.

Well Then I don't accept that. I prefer to accept the theory of evolution that has studied genetics, population mechanics, lineage, morphology, etc. Not just random mutaion causing change to DNA.

Who is an evolutionist? Probably whoever supports whichever kind of evolution they think is accurate.

Do you think it would be better for people to choose their own lables?

How about the lineage of the common ancestor?

Clarify please.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That's interesting. So, you're suggesting that, in the correct context, there IS a greater or lesser. My assertion was that humans did not evolve from a lesser animal. In the context of that comment, what do you think I meant by "lesser"? I'm not asking you to prove or defend anything, but just your opinion on what you think I meant.

No, tell me what you mean by lesser. Stop avoiding clarifying your phrases.

"Humans are apes" is vernacular which is, apparently, uncommon enough that the average dictionary does NOT presume as factual. Not only that, but the average dictionary actually contradicts the statement by specifying that "ape" does not include humans.

Scietific jargon isn't common English, so I wouldn't expect a common English dictionary to use specified definitions.

I asked "How much DNA similarity is necessary before a humans can be equated to another animal"? Your response does not answer this question.

Because your question doesn't make sense without a ton of clarifies and a multy page paper worth of explanation.

In shorty, you are asking question on a forum meant for short reply when its better suited to ask a biology professor in a class setting, or by reading a biology text on the subject.

Isolated from being "breeding capable"? What does that mean in practical terms? Can you give an example?

The problem is when I give you the practical terms, you are then going to scrutinize the general context with a common dictionary. How about you pick up a biology text dude.

Same lineage? Aren't you just noting similarities in DNA (which you said is based on "no specific standard") and presuming this represents a "lineage"? How does a scientist come to such a significant conclusion based on no specific standard?

Ok, you seem to always cut out the parts where I do clarify, so I'm going to just save myself anguish and tell you to got to your local library and get a biology text.

 

[Milk-Drops]

To fully clarify what I'm saying, it took a long time to get where I am and the reasons for why I hold my positions are complex. Most of the time when I'm commenting in this section, its more about correcting misunderstanding on what the theory of Evolution actually is. I usually try not to delve to deep into concepts like disproving god or getting down into the nitty gritty because it turns into math, long studies, data columns, needing a base knowledge in cell theory, genetics, micro-biology, basic chemistry, taxonomy, etc.

Its not easy to summarize in a paragraph or short answer. I have an expectation in discussion of people to at least acknowledge where they are getting their information and how to identify sources and authority. Yet rarely I see that kind of scrutiny applied to most creationist claims. It comes off as a sort of arrogance when I meet people with very little scientific training proudly claiming that a section of fundamental biology is not science (usually) because it disagrees with their position.

That is why I got to the point where I told you to just go read some books. Its irritating circling around the same basic concepts while you continue to say "your theory", " you being consistent", and " Your theory falls apart". It makes it clear that you aren't wanting to have a discussion about biology, but instead want to pin down something to write off what I'm saying. I don't play that game. I'm just here for the conversation, not to be a free biology teacher to people who don't care about the subject in the first place.

 

[john darling]

There are some problems I'd like to address. Its not my theory, its the theory I'm accepting based on the evidence that I have learned through research and study. Its not my theory.

Semantics

My views can be changed by evidence, so I'm wondering what you mean by my position being consistent?

I'll clarify.

No, because there is no evidence indicating that the first replicating cell was the ancestor to all living organisms.

And yet, in this same post, you also say that all organisms came from the same common ancestor. You also confirmed that evolution begins at replication. All. If all really means all, then all organisms must have come from the very first cell with the ability to replicate. I don't understand why you can't see this connection.

Or it could be that I'm being asked to give easy to understand examples, then getting scrutinized. Its seems like this is a gotcha game.

I think most people appreciate "easy to understand" examples. And scrutiny is just part of discussion. Are you suggesting that you don't scrutinize what I say? I'd actually feel offended if you didn't since that would basically equate to you ignoring my arguments.

You've lost me. You asked me what the stats are, I asked you to clarify and that your statement was vauge, and now I'm being ironic because I won't play the stats game? No, make a statement or move on.

You could just say, "I don't know".

Make a claim and we'll see.

I asked you a question, "how did these various behaviors evolve". You said they came from something other than biological evolution. I asked you, "like what". Instead of answering, you put it back on to me. Again, you could just say, "I don't know".

How about you ask directly and not play this catty game.

Or you could just respond to the issue. Do you think behavior in animals is part of biological evolution? If so, how is that different to behavior in humans being separate to biological evolution?

We aren't going off on anymore tangents until you clarify your education level.

How convenient.

I'm not a psychologist so I'm not going to make a clarifying statement.

Are you a biologist?

Well Then I don't accept that. I prefer to accept the theory of evolution that has studied genetics, population mechanics, lineage, morphology, etc. Not just random mutaion causing change to DNA.

Are you suggesting mutations in evolution are guided in any way?

Do you think it would be better for people to choose their own lables?

We all choose to believe what we want to believe, whether what we choose is true or not.

No, tell me what you mean by lesser. Stop avoiding clarifying your phrases.

I'll wait for your answer on whether animal behavior comes from evolution. If you think it does, then consider that you think human behavior does NOT come from evolution and you will understand what I mean by lesser and greater in this context.

Because your question doesn't make sense without a ton of clarifies and a multy page paper worth of explanation.

In shorty, you are asking question on a forum meant for short reply when its better suited to ask a biology professor in a class setting, or by reading a biology text on the subject.

You and convenience make a great team.

The problem is when I give you the practical terms, you are then going to scrutinize the general context with a common dictionary. How about you pick up a biology text dude.

I did a search for scientific and biological dictionaries for the word "ape" but couldn't find anything suggesting "humans are apes" except a wiki page entry, and even then it was written in a way which suggested the phrase was not standard.

Can you point me to any scintific or biological dictionaries which clearly specify, "humans are apes"?

 

[Milk-Drops]

And yet, in this same post, you also say that all organisms came from the same common ancestor.

Like I said, you keep trying to force a narrative that I'm not claiming. How hard is it to understand that there could have been multiple incidents of cell replication arising from proto cells?

You also confirmed that evolution begins at replication.

You are aware that evolution is a product of replication but that doesn't mean that every incident of replication and evolution equates to our ancestors right? Evolution in Biology is a mechanic.

That If all really means all, then all organisms must have come from the very first cell with the ability to replicate. I don't understand why you can't see this connection.

Easy I actually understand the subject matter and not playing word games. The very first replicating cell does not have to be our ancestor, why? There could have been multiple instances of replicating cells, the one the replicated the best would equate to our ancestor. It doesn't matter if it was the first or 900th. It doesn't matter.

I think most people appreciate "easy to understand" examples.

Sure, until you are talking to someone who takes your simplified concepts and warps them out of context and abuses the vague nature of some simplified terms to construct a narrative that the speaker didn't say. Simplification is useful for begging, but you have to go into specific to actually learn the core concepts.

And scrutiny is just part of discussion.

Unless its beating a dead horse for the 6th time in a conversation. Then its annoying.

You could just say, "I don't know".

I did the first time you asked.

I asked you a question, "how did these various behaviors evolve".

And I explained its not my field and yet you beat the dead horse over and over again. Behaviors aren't only effected by genetics, but by social interaction and by education. Evolution can explain how the brain was capable of making it possible for the brain to gain sentience, but it doesn't explain why we do what we do. That is why Sociology and Psychology are their own fields.

Or you could just respond to the issue. Do you think behavior in animals is part of biological evolution? If so, how is that different to behavior in humans being separate to biological evolution?

Read above.

Are you a biologist?

Never officially finished my course work. I already mentioned this before.

Are you suggesting mutations in evolution are guided in any way?

By selection preasures.

I'll wait for your answer on whether animal behavior comes from evolution.

And I'll wait for you to tell me your education level, which you have dodged multiple times.

If you think it does, then consider that you think human behavior does NOT come from evolution and you will understand what I mean by lesser and greater in this context.

It seems you can't read. I already mentioned that it isn't my field, so I already said it din't fully come from evolution, but psychology has done research into it and came up with some theories, but its not my field so I don't act as an authority on it. Like I said you circle around a topic beating a dead horse until you get the answer you want. Even if I've already explained it. If this is just you wanting to go "I beat and Evolutionist herpa derp" Then we are done.

 

[john darling]

You are aware that evolution is a product of replication but that doesn't mean that every incident of replication and evolution equates to our ancestors right? Evolution in Biology is a mechanic.

This is where the confusion comes in. I am not suggesting that all organisms came from a common ancestor, so I'm quite open to the idea of multiple sources of evolution. But for that to be true, you can no longer say all organisms come from a common ancestor. You'd need to make "ancestor" plural, and then you'd need to guess at just how big that plural could be and at what intervals these spontaneous burst of life (thus leading to new source ancestors) occurred. You've already said that attempting to do so would amount to pulling numbers out of the air, so how can you continue to say you believe all organisms came from a common ancestor while at the same time arguing there could have been multiple (a number one could only guess at) ancestors along the way?

There could have been multiple instances of replicating cells, the one the replicated the best would equate to our ancestor. It doesn't matter if it was the first or 900th. It doesn't matter.

It matters if your statements contradict one another. You suggest evolution starts at replication and all organisms come from a common ancestor. But then you also suggested that there could be a whole range of cells (with the ability to replicate) spontaneously ocurring. It doesn't matter if it's the first or the 900th. Personally, I agree.

But it sounds (to me) irrational to then go on to say that although the number of spontaneously ocuring cells with the ability to replicate could be just a few or even in the millions, you've settled on a theory which says only one of those cells went on to be the common ancestor for all organisms.

The implication is that no matter how many spontaneously ocuring life forms appeared on the scene (even if it's in the thousands or millions over millions of years) all except one (i.e. the common ancestor for all organisms) died off. If more than one cell survived to go on replicating and mutating into more complex life forms then you cannot say all organisms came from a common ancestor; it would need to be plural and you'd need to remove "a" from the sentence.

the vague nature of some simplified terms

Are you referring to "Humans are apes" or "all organisms come from a common ancestor"?

Evolution can explain how the brain was capable of making it possible for the brain to gain sentience, but it doesn't explain why we do what we do.

Do you believe this to be true for animals as well?

Never officially finished my course work. I already mentioned this before.

Ahh right, I remember now. You did mention this before. Anyway, the reason I asked again was to make a point about the psychologist thing. You said you don't want to give your opinion on where behavior came from if not from evolution because you are not a psychologist, but you've given plenty of your opinions on evolution even though you are not a biologist.

I don't think I've ever even implied that I'd only listen to your arguments if you were a qualified biologist or psychologist. This is a discussion. I was asking for your opinions in the context of a person who is participating in the discussion.

Anyway, human behavior is fundamentally different from animal behavior. I don't think one needs to be a psychologist or a biologist to see that.

Compare the majority of human behavior to the teachings of Jesus and you'll quickly discover glaring differences. The way Jesus told people to behave; it's so completely contrary to how we feel most naturally inclined to behave. Animals don't deal with things like hypocrisy, selfrighteousness, impatience, or hatred.

If one dog eats all the food in the bowl leaving nothing for the second dog, we don't accuse the dog of being greedy in the same way we'd think of a human being greedy in a similar context of eating all the food, because the dog doesn't have the ability to reason out what it means to share. The dog doesn't reason, "if someone else were to eat all the food leaving nothing for me, I would feel hurt, so I will not do that to others".

By selection preasures.

"Selection pressures"? Can you give an example of how this equates to guided mutation rather than random mutation?

 

[Milk-Drops]

This is where the confusion comes in.

Your confusion probably has more to do with your lack of understanding and knowledge of the scientific field of Biology and the Theory of Evolution. This is highly problematic considering you want to poke holes in my logic and the theory, but seem to lack the very knowledge to even discuss the theory in general.

I I'm quite open to the idea of multiple sources of evolution. But for that to be true, you can no longer say all organisms come from a common ancestor.

No, we are going to go with what I actually said. Evolution is the change in populations over time through population mechanics. You are getting hung up over the very first replicating organism since I mentioned that replication is where evolution begins. This makes you insist that the first replicating cell has to be the ancestor to all organisms since I subscribe to the common ancestor theory. All the theory I subscribe to needs is a replicating cell, it doesn't matter if its the first or the billionth. A cell just had to survive, replicate, and its protege had to survive and replicate. Multiple proto cells could have arisen and started replicating, but only one had to have a successful lineage.

You'd need to make "ancestor" plural, and then you'd need to guess at just how big that plural could be and at what intervals these spontaneous burst of life (thus leading to new source ancestors) occurred.

No I don't. That is because you are now talking about Abiogenesis, and I'm talking about Evolution. Abiogenesis is life starting. Evolution is how Life adapts over time. Genetics is the study of heredity. Taxonomy is the study of classification within biology. Phylogeny is the study of how organisms relate to each other. Homology is the study of similar morphology. Etc. Learn about the very field before you try to argue against it.

You've already said that attempting to do so would amount to pulling numbers out of the air,

No, I said I wasn't going to pull numbers out of the air. There is a big difference there, mainly that the instance you asked me to give you stats for was over something I'm not even arguing. So, I'm not going to pull numbers out of thin air for you to argue against.

so how can you continue to say you believe all organisms came from a common ancestor while at the same time arguing there could have been multiple (a number one could only guess at) ancestors along the way?

Because you misunderstood what I said. I said all modern organisms came from a common ancestor, and you keep insisting it had to be the first replicating cell, and I say that it doesn't have to be the first replicating cell. If there were more then one replicating cells, that doesn't mean they were all ancestors to all organisms we see today. A simple way to illustrate this is that a person could have a son. That son goes on to have many generation after him. Your questioning would be like asking if that original son was the first offspring of the father. I could say it doesn't matter if he was the first, sibling, it doesn't change the lineage that came after him. All it means is that there could have been other siblings, but they didn't effect the lineage.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

It matters if your statements contradict one another. You suggest evolution starts at replication and all organisms come from a common ancestor. But then you also suggested that there could be a whole range of cells (with the ability to replicate) spontaneously occurring. It doesn't matter if it's the first or the 900th. Personally, I agree.

See my example above.

But it sounds (to me) irrational to then go on to say that although the number of spontaneously ocuring cells with the ability to replicate could be just a few or even in the millions, you've settled on a theory which says only one of those cells went on to be the common ancestor for all organisms.

Because all the evidence on heredity, genealogy, population mechanics, morphology, and phylogeny points to a common ancestor.

The implication is that no matter how many spontaneously ocuring life forms appeared on the scene (even if it's in the thousands or millions over millions of years) all except one (i.e. the common ancestor for all organisms) died off.

Yep. Its inconsequential how many replicating cells there originally were. At the end of the day, the evidence supports a common ancestor. It doesn't matter how unlikely you think it is, its all about evidence. Eventually you are going to have to make a claim if you want to convince me that this is wrong. What is your position? Do you even have a position?

If more than one cell survived to go on replicating and mutating into more complex life forms then you cannot say all organisms came from a common ancestor; it would need to be plural and you'd need to remove "a" from the sentence.

So what evidence do yo have that says that there are multiple ancestors?

Do you believe this to be true for animals as well?

That Animals evolved traits through natural selection and various selection pressures, and that psychology is the field of study that studies how the mind works? And that sociology studies how populations behave? yes.

Ahh right, I remember now. You did mention this before. Anyway, the reason I asked again was to make a point about the psychologist thing.

How about you make your point instead of alluding to it over several posts and keeping me in a guessing game. I'm tired playing games.

You said you don't want to give your opinion on where behavior came from if not from evolution because you are not a psychologist, but you've given plenty of your opinions on evolution even though you are not a biologist.

I make statements about biology because I was trained in it and keep up the best I can with the field through journals. I am not as versed in Psych or Sociology so I'm not as comfortable making statements about those fields. I still have yet to get you to even tell me what your training is in, but I bet you will never tell me because you can't even make a claim, let alone demonstrate a credential.

I don't think I've ever even implied that I'd only listen to your arguments if you were a qualified biologist or psychologist. This is a discussion. I was asking for your opinions in the context of a person who is participating in the discussion.

And I'm under no obligation to give you any such opinions.

Anyway, human behavior is fundamentally different from animal behavior.

How so?

I don't think one needs to be a psychologist or a biologist to see that.

You do need to back up your statement though.

Compare the majority of human behavior to the teachings of Jesus and you'll quickly discover glaring differences.

Ok, give some examples and explain them please.

The way Jesus told people to behave; it's so completely contrary to how we feel most naturally inclined to behave. Animals don't deal with things like hypocrisy, selfrighteousness, impatience, or hatred.

Why do you say that?

If one dog eats all the food in the bowl leaving nothing for the second dog, we don't accuse the dog of being greedy in the same way we'd think of a human being greedy in a similar context of eating all the food, because the dog doesn't have the ability to reason out what it means to share. The dog doesn't reason, "if someone else were to eat all the food leaving nothing for me, I would feel hurt, so I will not do that to others".

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that humans are differnt due to our reasoning skills and cognitive ability. I agree that we differ from other organism based on this. However I recognize that there are things humans lack that other organisms have. In evolutionary biology, it called a niche.

"Selection pressures"? Can you give an example of how this equates to guided mutation rather than random mutation?

Nice rephrasing. You didn't make the clarification between random mutation or guided. You just said mutation. I'm not defending stuff I didn't make. I'm done for now.

 

[Barbarian]

Humans are apes" is vernacular which is, apparently, uncommon enough that the average dictionary does NOT presume as factual.

Scientifically, humans are apes.
The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/), also known as great apes,[notes 1] form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera: the chimpanzees (Pan) with 2 species; gorillas (Gorilla) with 2 species; humans (Homo) with 1 species; and orangutans (Pongo) with 2 species.[1]
Wikipedia

Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the ape superfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo). Formerly, humans alone (with their extinct forebears) were placed in Hominidae, and the great apes were placed in a different family, Pongidae. However, morphological and molecular studies now indicate that humans are closely related to chimpanzees, while gorillas are more distant and orangutans more distant still.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270333/Hominidae

Linnaeus admitted this much himself, hundreds of years ago:
It matters little to me what name we use; but I demand of you, and of
the whole world, that you show me a generic character — one that is accord-
ing to generally accepted principles of classification — by which to distin-
guish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none, I
wish somebody would indicate one to me, But, if I had called man an
ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics.
It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so
https://archive.org/stream/cbarchiv...ist1909/linnaeusasanevolutionist1909_djvu.txt