[_ Old Earth _] Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

[John]

Be careful there. When you try to push others away from God, you only push yourself away from Him.

If the truth pushes you away then maybe you need to get away.

 

[mechanicdb]

They found some skulls and bones that seem to be from some kind of 'crossover' from an ape to a human. What they can't answer is why there aren't still the crossover creatures in existance today, or how something else didn't also evolve from apes...or why there are so few 'crossover' bones, or many many other questions. I mean, it took them 19 centuries to come up with the idea of evolution, so they need some more time to explain it. ;) :D

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, okay.... but then so are Francis Collins, Ken Miller and every member of the Affiliation of Christian Biologists, as far as I know.

They are deluded I do not consider them Christians.

Whoops, no true Scotsman fallacy. Who died and appointed you the judge of who is and is not a Christian?

 

[Vic C.]

This thread is a mess. There are posts with quotes to other posts which are now either missing or have been edited. Plus I don't like the spirit in which some of you are posting. Remember the rules you people agree to when you were granted permission to post in here?

This thread is locked until a Mod can clean up the errant quotes.

 

[Vic C.]

Cleaned and unlocked.

Carry on... er, I mean, proceed.

 

[lordkalvan]

They found some skulls and bones that seem to be from some kind of 'crossover' from an ape to a human. What they can't answer is why there aren't still the crossover creatures in existance today, or how something else didn't also evolve from apes...or why there are so few 'crossover' bones, or many many other questions. I mean, it took them 19 centuries to come up with the idea of evolution, so they need some more time to explain it. ;) :D

How would you define a 'crossover' - that's transitional, more usually - species? What sort of 'something else' would you expect to evolve from ancestral species from which the modern primates have developed anyway? In one sense, at least, all species alive today are transitional to a greater or lesser extent, anyway: they derive from ancestral species that were different from the species alive today and they will one day become extinct either with or without descendant species that have evolved from them.

 

[mechanicdb]

What sort of 'something else' would you expect to evolve from ancestral species from which the modern primates have developed anyway?

funny you should ask, because i don't believe anything would evolve from apes...including humans. ;)

However, if you're asking about general evolution; theoretically, apes could have evolved from snakes...has anybody ever questioned that though?

 

[lordkalvan]

What sort of 'something else' would you expect to evolve from ancestral species from which the modern primates have developed anyway?

funny you should ask, because i don't believe anything would evolve from apes...including humans. ;)

The evidence suggests otherwise. Taxonomically, humans are already classified as apes. ;)

However, if you're asking about general evolution; theoretically, apes could have evolved from snakes...has anybody ever questioned that though?

Well, as the evidence indicates that mammals evolved from reptiles and snakes are reptiles and apes are mammals.... To answer your point, however, it has been questioned in the sense that science is about testing and questioning hypotheses based on accumulated evidence.

 

[Guest]

Wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions

This is incorrect. It is possible to reach true conclusions from false premises.

 

[John]

Wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions

This is incorrect. It is possible to reach true conclusions from false premises.

The examples presented in your link are vague. She could be any age over 35 and you would still be right, the problem is that when i am talking about assumptions in the evolution debate my question would look more like this the president must be 35 years old, it is a hit and miss statement.


Wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions, assuming that man shares a common ancestor leads to a wrong conclusion.

 

[lordkalvan]

.....Wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions, assuming that man shares a common ancestor leads to a wrong conclusion.

It's not assumed: it's based on the best assessment of the available evidence.

 

[John]

Again. The evidence is circumstantial and subject to interpretation.

 

[Guest]

Wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions

This is incorrect. It is possible to reach true conclusions from false premises.

The examples presented in your link are vague. She could be any age over 35 and you would still be right, the problem is that when i am talking about assumptions in the evolution debate my question would look more like this the president must be 35 years old, it is a hit and miss statement.

You have misunderstood the point. The syllogism is logically valid. The conclusion is true (i.e., Elizabeth Taylor is over 35 years old. She is 77.). However, one of the premises is false. Thus, the argument draws a true conclusion from a false premise.

Thus, your claim "wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions" is false.

 

[John]

I was applying it to ToE.

 

[Guest]

I was applying it to ToE.

Correct. And I am pointing out that your premise is false.

 

[John]

Correct. And I am pointing out that your premise is false.

Not when applied to the ToE ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

Again. The evidence is circumstantial and subject to interpretation.

Then let me repeat the information I provided about the similarities between chimpanzees and humans:

Comparative anatomy is evidence that supports the hypothesis of common ancestry, as are the other items of evidence that The Barbarian put forward. Consider the indisputable facts that, for example, there is no part of the digestive, immune, lymph, vascular and nervous systems that chimps and humans do not share. Both chimps and humans have three tiny bones in the middle ear, as well as sharing every other bone. The chemicals in the brain are the same as well. There are 13 chromosomes in chimps and humans in which there are no visible differences.

The Barbarian pointed the thread towards the chromosome issue more specifically: 'Humans have 23 pairs; other apes have 24. From this scientists predicted a fusion event. Subsequent investigation showed that the human #2 chromosome is virtually identical to 2 ape chromosomes, with the molecular evidence of telomeres and a centromere, right where they should be in the event of a fusion.'

What interpretation do you place on this evidence? I would also be interested if you consider that all the so-called great apes (except humans in this instance) are related in some way? If yes, what leads you this conclusion? If no, why not?

 

[Guest]

Correct. And I am pointing out that your premise is false.

Not when applied to the ToE ;)

Why is the premise true when applied to the theory of evolution?

 

[John]

Because evolution theory starts with assumptions and acts on them yielding wrong conclusions.

For example evolution claims that we all started out as small cells then after millions of years here we are, however even the "fossil record" does not agree with them, the "Cambrian" explosion debunks that.

But with Creation we say the "fossil record" is just organisms caught in the sediment during the great flood, we start with a correct foundation and there is no wrong answers.

 

[Guest]

Because evolution theory starts with assumptions and acts on them yielding wrong conclusions.

I see. Then the problem is sloppiness. You made the unqualified claim that "wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions." This claim is false, as I have pointed out. The claim you should have made was "wrong assumptions can yield wrong conclusions." We must be careful and precise in our statements, particularly when dealing with science and other academic fields.

For example evolution claims that we all started out as small cells then after millions of years here we are, however even the "fossil record" does not agree with them, the "Cambrian" explosion debunks that.

This is an oversimplification of evolutionary theory.

But with Creation we say the "fossil record" is just organisms caught in the sediment during the great flood, we start with a correct foundation and there is no wrong answers.

It is possible to start with true premises and end with false conclusions. However, that aside, how do you know the foundation is correct?