Man Vs. Monkey!!

[Last Man Standing]

One very common mistake the home-schoolers make is that evolution isn't simply reliant upon a genetic cause. DNA does in fact mutate to increase variety in species, but the X factor will always be environmental changes that select in or out a particular variation. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the species best able to adapt to a changed or changing environment. Up until the late Cretaceous period reptiles the size of your house littered the planet. At some point something dramatically changed the environment. While the details of that event may never be known, what is known is that anything with a body mass greater than a few hundred pounds died off in a very short period. The environment selected them out, not their DNA. The moths that were affected by the industrial pollution someone else here mentioned were similarly selected out. It was not due to some spontaneous change in their DNA to compensate for a color shift in their environment. The lighter moths were simply not eaten by predators as often as the newly de-camouflaged darker ones and therefore were free to breed more readily. DNA does not surrepticiously change in accordance to environment, environment delimits which DNA will replicate.

The problem I have with the creationist vs. evolutionist debate is that both camps are so polarized that neither is willing to give an inch. Creationists (see fundamentalist christians) see evolution as a threat to their belief system and have the natural backlash anyone with a strong ego-investment would. On the other side Evolutionists want to use natural selection, et. al. to verify their own intellectual positions and poke at the spiritual. Neither side wants to concede a point at any cost because it validates the other at their own expense. The evolutionist lacks the spiritual and the creationist lacks the scientific.

The answer is in between. I'm not stupid enough to close my mind off to the possibility of the meta-physical, but neither am I foolish enough to ignore what's empirically provable that's right in front of my nose. It's not people with questions that scare me, it's people who have none that do. Remain the perpetual student and you'll maneuver around zealots and extremists of all stripes.

Evolutionary motivations for behavior, etc. does not excuse one from accepting responsibility for the consequences of that behavior. Neither does the socially constructed notion of morality change the basic biochemical nature of the prompts for that behavior. This is the dilemma that LMS and the rest of the home-schoolers get a headache from. They assume an understanding, or an accepting of an evolutionary basis for behavior excuses a person from behaving in anti-social ways. The irony of this is that it's just the social nature of human beings that alters the environment that should select out certain behavioral traits. The answer is that nature and nurture go hand in hand, neither can deny the other's influence on a being as a whole. But hey, don't let that stop the ignorance, have at it guys - or at least until close this thread for being quasi-religious. It makes for some great comedy.

Don't close this thread - we are not talking religion here! And those who disagree with your premises and conclusions are not "ignorant" - ignorance is to claim that you know everything! This is why I stated that we should stay on topic...

The rationale behind evolution is self-evident and thoroughly demonstrated.

Evolution, at the macro level, as a fact, has not been proven nor demonstrated! You guys are discussing changes and mutations, but these are changes and mutations within a certain species but fail to explain the overall premise of evolution theory whereby a new organism is created from another source/species via mutations. Every species has a genetic code and changes and mutations happen within that genetic code, but it does not create a new genetic code. The question I'm trying to get answered is who/what created the codes in all species? Where did the genetic code of the sperm come from?

To keep everyone interested, I would like to keep this discussion at the general level and not just have biologists talk details at the micro level - the purpose of this thread was to discuss the origin of man!

The grand scheme of evolutionary theory has not been proven, because within their framework or premise of the theory, it takes millions of years to observe this at the MACRO level. And by scientific standards, if it is not observable then it cannot be proven. This is why they reject creationism - intelligent being - so by the same rationale they should reject evolution as well! BUT, they are teaching children in schools that we came from apes? Why so, if it has not been proven? This is what needs to be discuss!ed here!

 

[Deep Dish]

Evolution, at the macro level, as a fact, has not been proven nor demonstrated!

One method deniers employ when creating a controversy (where none actually exists) is to take the central tenant of a premise--a singular premise and thus a singular tenant, bifercate the issue into two separate issues, and accept one, deny the other. Accepting the first one lends a false auora of fairness and denying the second lends a false auora of intelligence; false because in actuality they are denying the whole issue, because there is only one issue. There is no such thing as "micro" evolution, it is not a scientific term but one invented purely by deniers.

 

[Last Man Standing]

By macro level, I want to discuss how did we get to this great leap that man came from ape mentality being taught in schools. I'm not concerned with bacteria or moths, or other minor details that doesn't prove the man from ape teaching.

What is the overall rationale in general terms?

 

[iqqi]

By macro level, I want to discuss how did we get to this great leap that man came from ape mentality being taught in schools. I'm not concerned with bacteria or moths, or other minor details that doesn't prove the man from ape teaching.

What is the overall rationale in general terms?

Noone said man came from monkeys. And people who keep saying this sound ignorant and dumb as all hell.

Apes and people share a common ancestor, both man and ape are evolved from that original link.

Is that general enough?

 

[iqqi]

I came to the conclusion that there was no god when I was 7/8. I read the bible and afterwards, I was like this is some bullsh!t! I did ask some questions to the "elders" in church, but none of them could answer intelligently.

When I got older, and evolution was introduced to me in the classroom, all my questions were answered. It was my aha moment.

Of course there were some kids in the classroom who ignored the whole common ancestor part and made an uproar about how we all came from monkeys.

 

[Last Man Standing]

Ok iqqi, why is it that textbooks keep showing the man from monkey picture? Explain this.

And who is the common ancestor? I would like to know.

 

[Deep Dish]

By macro level, I want to discuss how did we get to this great leap that man came from ape mentality being taught in schools. I'm not concerned with bacteria or moths, or other minor details that doesn't prove the man from ape teaching.

What is the overall rationale in general terms?

Okay, fine. Evolutionary theory does hold that humans evolved from monkeys. Maybe Charles Darwin spoke too softly, so maybe I will say that again. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT HOLD THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS. Rather, we evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution can be described metaphorically as a big tree and we are just one leaf on one fig on one tree limb, of this big tree. Apes, monkeys, are our next door neighbor tree leaf. In terms of arrows of causation, evolutionary theory does not hold we evolved from that neighboring tree leaf, but rather a common tree limb. The fact that, as of yet, scientists have not yet discovered the missing link between humans and apes is rather irrelevant. I am reminded of the wise words of a scientist named David Albert:

There is a deep and perennial and profoundly human impulse to approach the world with a DEMAND, to approach the world with a PRECONDITION, that what has got to turn out to lie at THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, that what has got to turn out to lie at THE FOUNDATION OF ALL BEING, is some powerful and reassuring and accessible image of OURSELVES.

Our missing link is irrelevant because we have found the links between many other species. The latest example is scientists have successfully linked every evolutionary step between whales and a fox-like deer (look it up on sciencedaily.com if you want). So, while it would be awesome if we did find our missing link, the fate of evolutionary theory is not hinged upon it. The fact evolution deniers focus on this illiterarcy is dimwited.

 

[cordoncordon]

That is not macroevolution. That is bacteria changing into bacteria. What usually happens is that the stronger form of bacteria is left to survive and in turn make a superstrain of bacteria. But still bacteria. Nothing is being added that changes the fact that it is still bacteria. Microevolution being that changes are being made where certain characteristics that are already in the genes become the dominant characteristics. Such as the moth example. The moth already had the genes for being darker and lighter. It just lost the ability for one.

You just described evolution! The strongest of the fittest will survive! And of course it is still bacteria. Evolution takes 100's of millions if not billions of years to take place. You think a bacteria will change its general genetic makeup in a matter of 50 years or so?

Heres the one thing that I ask any creationists who believes in God and that he performs miracles such as curing cancer, arthritis, disease, etc. IF all that is true, why has there never been one case of God healing an amputee? They are ill, their health is affected greatly, some of them pray, but no new arm or leg?

Religion is the greatest scam ever put on the human race. How many people have died in the name of religion? It's all made up BS, with the Christian religion based on astrology. That's right...astrology. Don't believe it? Watch this from about 5 minutes in and then tell me you don't.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

[iqqi]

Ok iqqi, why is it that textbooks keep showing the man from monkey picture? Explain this.

And who is the common ancestor? I would like to know.

As far as I know, the missing link has not been discovered. And I have never seen a picture of a man coming from a monkey, that wasn't a joke.

According to this link here, the direct lineage from the ancestor of both man and the modern apes to modern man is not known. Evidence is increasing. Thousands of relics fit the general pattern.
It goes on to say this: From a genome viewpoint, the difference between modern man and the modern apes is quite small, about 2 percent. From a physical viewpoint, the greatest difference is in locomotion. The human walks upright. It is generally thought that this came about when the ancient hominid adopted the edge of the forest and plain and adapted to a life under the trees as opposed to in them. Fossil evidence shows that this bipedal adaptation was completed quite early, perhaps as early as four million years ago, long before we looked like or thought like we do today. Facial feature changes toward the modern appearance came much later. The facial characteristics of modern man are about 100,000 years old. The faces of earlier hominid were much more apelike.

This link here had some great graphs and good links.

Some more good info: The missing link

 

[Last Man Standing]

Cordon we are not talking religion here - we are talking about the origin of man! I can just as well say that Darwin theory is the biggest hoax in the annals of human history!! Our educational system has been taken over by agenda driven lunatics who are using my tax dollars to brainwash children! What tax dollars of yours are being used to promote an intelligent being creator? ZERO!!

Ok deep dish - then why can't that common ancestor be an intelligent being who gave us the genetic codes to all things? By your definition this could be a possibility.

Just like religions are dogmatic and have an agenda then the same could be with a certain part of the scientific community who are financed by men of great wealth who are pushing an agenda!. And no, the chain from bacteria to fish to man has not been provent! Just because people with Phd's say so doesn't prove it! I want proof and not interpretations!! Hardcore proof!

Iqqi, that is all conjecture - 100,000 years ago? This is what makes me doubt what they say - because of their such surety of how things were a million years ago! That is just plain silly! They don't even know how their great granmother looked yet they know this!! HUH??

And yes, I saw the man from monkey picture in my textbooks and they still teach it!

Did you know that in 2003 the human genome research project announced that they have conclusively mapped the human genome and that all humans originated from the black man and woman? It was only on the news for 30 seconds and never discussed again! Are they going to now show the white man coming from the black man? Nope, they prefer to show that they came from monkeys instead of a black man! Go figure!! Talk about this genetic evolutionary fact!!!!

This is the closest link you will find to prove your theory...http://www.bushorchimp.com/

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

EvC Forum

Good BBS for exactly this topic.

 

[cordoncordon]

LMS, I don't know where you are getting this man came from monkeys idea. I am an ardent follower of science, debate of evolution vs. creation, etc, and I have never heard that except from people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Modern man, or Homo sapiens, first appeared in our world's history about 150,000 years ago, in Africa. They were most likely black in color. That DOESN"T mean that prehistoric man, which came into existence MILLIONS OF YEARS ago, came from black men or monkeys for that matter. See the difference?

Here is a nice chart of the most likely origins of man.
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8205/evoljw5.png

You are being much to singular in your train of thought. You are basically saying man came from chimps, but chimps are still here and so are humans. That is wrong. You have to go back MILLIONS, not thousands of years. Some sort of primate evolved. Other species evolved from that primate. Some became more ape like, other more human like. And other branches even different that those. Species evolved and branched off from those branches as well, including modern humans, and on a different branch, modern monkeys-or primates.

You are just wayyyyy over simplifying things.

 

[SmoothTalker]

I haven't read all posts so it might have been covered, but it really annoys me when people try to use science they don't understand to back up bull**** beliefs.

To all the jokers who quoted entropy as a reason why organization couldn't have increased through evolution, read the law carefully.

It states an ISOLATED system, ie with no new energy input. We get vast amounts of new energy every day from that big ball of fire in the sky, hence, it doesn't really apply in the sense you try to use it.

 

[Desert Fox]

Men never came from apes....

That's not true, and a popular misconception among the creationist community.

Here's what I mean.

Both APES and HUMANS and WHALES and BATS and FROGS and SHARKS and OAKS and CENTIPEDES are MODERN SPECIES.

THEREFORE, apes cannot just turn into a human. You must realize there are evolutionary LINEAGES and based on the law of parsimony, these lineages generally do NOT diverge then reconvene. These lineages will be separate forever.

Humans are not some advanced life form like you would like to think. On and EVOLUTIONARY SCALE. ALL the SPECIES that we see today are EQUALS in the sense that the bats we see today, the humans that we see today, the rats that we see today, the apes that we see today are all the MODERN SPECIES of an ancestral organism.

Now I hope it is clear why humans did not "come from" monkeys. It is simply wrong to compare humans with monkeys in the zoo, and this is not what evolution states.

 

[Desert Fox]

I haven't read all posts so it might have been covered, but it really annoys me when people try to use science they don't understand to back up bull**** beliefs.

To all the jokers who quoted entropy as a reason why organization couldn't have increased through evolution, read the law carefully.

It states an ISOLATED system, ie with no new energy input. We get vast amounts of new energy every day from that big ball of fire in the sky, hence, it doesn't really apply in the sense you try to use it.

Very true both in regards to the jokers and entropy.

 

[Trinitron]

Evolution is a scientific theory and Creationism is a Christian belief. Unless you're both arguing from the same view point it's just pointless to argue the two, and just down right wrong the compare them.
This is just a boring ad infinitum argument, you can't win untill you both take the same side or find a third position.

Protip to LMS: You can't refute these scientific ideas arguing from a postion where scientific method is correct, beacuse scientific method holds them to be true, if you believe science on the whole is correct you believe in evolution (I say this liberally).
Don't try and pick holes in it as if really understand it, because alot of people really do understand it and understand why it is so universally accepted.

What is alot more interesting and infinitely more relevant to today, is the utillity of teaching religion and science in general education, which one would be beneficial to society.
You should be arguing this LMS, atheist will be running for cover.

 

[Desert Fox]

Another thing:

If people are so adamantly AGAINST evolution, it is up to them to DISPROVE IT. If someone says gravity isn't real, and EVERYONE in the scientific community (ie. someone w/a PhD in the physical/biological sciences/engineering; theologists and wanna-be "social scientists" don't count) agrees that gravity IS real, then it is up to that outcast to PROVE everyone else wrong. If somethiing is WRONG Then something else must be RIGHT. What is that right thing?

That is how science works. If he/she comes up with a reasonable alternative, then his/her view will be accepted.

Examples:

Galileo --> heliocentric model
Pasteur --> killed spontaneous generation (sorry to break it to the Jesus freaks)

So, what is your alternative to evolution?

And LMS, please go read a science book. Your posts about fluids and alchemy are entertaining at best, but mostly embarassing for you.

 

[Aboleo]

By the way don't you think it's odd Aboleo that a Christian is defending evolution and an atheist is playing the Devil's advocate? I find that highly amusing.

There are many highly amusing things about this discussion... but just for the record, I am not a christian. I believe in the existence of the spiritual element in reality, the "meta-physical", and I do believe in a higher power as well. This does not mean that I am a christian, after all... I also believe in the theory of evolution. Happy now?


Well said, rollo... but please keep this thread open just a while longer... it is very interesting. I think that if everyone would just calm down and try to have an intelligent discussion about this we could all come away from it as better men.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

If we can keep the debate to the veracity of evolution, intelligent design, creationism, etc. without devolving (get it? heh,.) into a my "My God can beat up your God" argument I'll leave it be. I emphatically believe that a lot of what drives men and women in terms of behaviorism, social constructs, concepts of morality, etc. are rooted in our evolved biochemistry and evolutionary psychology, so this topic is relevant. Please keep it so.

 

[Obsidian]

The dogmatic evolutionists are not listening

Deep Dish and Desert Fox have both completed ignored my earlier points, and they are using rhetorical debate tactics to manipulate people into believing "science."

There is no such thing as "micro" evolution, it is not a scientific term but one invented purely by deniers.

Evolutionists bring out the example of moths whose populations experience a change in pre-existing genetic distribution, and they correctly label that "evolution." But then they use this same phenomenon to extrapolate "proof" of a completely different theory -- that mutations can lead to profitable change. The moths didn't involve mutations whatsoever.

If people are so adamantly AGAINST evolution, it is up to them to DISPROVE IT.

Umm, sorry, but I don't think that's how science works. If a theory has holes in it, I can merely point out the holes. I'm not required to replace the bogus theory with another proven one. The reason evolution has become accepted is NOT because of any massive amount of evidence to support it. It has become accepted because
1) theoretically, it kinda makes sense
2) we can view all types of life on this planet, with varying degrees of similarity to each other, such that we can form a "fossil record" and speculate that these differences evolved from a common source
3) the only known alternative is creationism, which is not a scientific (read: naturalistic) theory


And Pasteur did indeed disprove spontaneous generation -- and abiogenesis is essentially that.