jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (299 posts)

Humans are 98.7% chimpanzee and bonobo monkeys and 1.3% what?

  1. cjhunsinger profile image71
    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago

    As the un-believers would have us believe, Man was created, specifically, by a form of deity for the purposes of testing. In this creation Man, being an inferior life form, would be subjected to a hostile world without an instruction manual, but no matter, Man could not read or write anyway. In this creation scenario Man, was left to his own devices to determine what plants were not poisonous, a trial and error thing, what thunder and lightening were and what a myriad of other things were or were not deadly. Man being, essentially, 98.7 % monkey is inherently a sexual animal, but this deity would find it amusing to inform his inferior creation, that such was a sin and could be punishable with damnation,  yet another of this gods creations.
    "Sexual activity generally plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation.[37] Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (though a pair of western gorillas has been photographed performing face-to-face genital sex[38]), tongue kissing, and oral sex.[39]
    Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual activity between mothers and their adult sons." Quoted from Nature, a journal of scientific discovery.
    Perhaps, if we go by sexual traits and practices alone, are we not 100% monkey and in some cases, it would seem that, that is precisely what we are.
    That one would think that somehow humanity was, again, created by a deity and not an evolved species, from the line of the Great Apes, is simply the denial of a reasoned truth in favor of an imagined supernatural deity that supplants the 1.3% difference of the capacity to reason with insecurity and possibly self loathing.
    Man, by the definition of religious belief, is a denial, a disbelief, an unbelief in the reality that is Man, who exists in a universe unknown and now ignored by deity worshipers.     
    "the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day." (Westminster Confession)


    More interesting, is the 1.3% difference

    1. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone who can spin a yarn like that can surely finish the last 1.3%.

      1. cjhunsinger profile image71
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        bBerean
        Not a yarn, but you are invited to show me where i am wrong. I can finish the 1.3 %
        but I thought others may want to constructively participate. You are welcome.

        1. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The whole monkey thing is a yarn, and one not even all proponents of scientism agree with or support.  Lots of room for disagreement since it is entirely built on speculation anyway.  The best you could hope to do is say we are some percent similar in makeup or dna to a monkey....as we are to many other things.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, an argument of any kind regarding evolution, or any topic for that matter, must pertain directly to the subject matter. If, for example, we are discussing bowling, the topics could be things like five pin verses ten pin, types of shoes or gloves. In any case, there would be arguments given that involve the details of the subject matter.

            So, if you wish to argue evolution, you must talk the talk, and tell us exactly what you believe is wrong about it. You may use peer reviewed articles from scientific journals to support your argument, because that's exactly what you'll require to offer any kind of rebuttal.

            To merely state "the monkey thing is a yarn" is by no means an argument, it is an insult to the author's intelligence and only demonstrates a lack of credibility on your part to raise an argument.

            "it is entirely built on speculation"

            Then, show us.

            1. bBerean profile image60
              bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, just saying the whole thing is a yarn built entirely on speculation is being rather charitable.  In truth there is nothing to argue because you won't be able to produce a single fact that uniquely indicates macro evolution has ever occurred.  Not one fact. 

              Indeed the burden of proof is on you.  How many times have atheists said you can't prove a negative?   Evolution is  merely a belief you hold.  Materialistically, I can't prove it wrong anymore than you can prove it right, (purple unicorns, invisible dragons, and all those atheist favorites come to mind). 

              Considering all the bluster it's adherents convey about how true macro evolution is, loving to call it a "fact" when nothing could be further from the truth, you would think one measly genuine fact for which there is no other viable explanation would be no problem.  But you don't have one, or do you?  I'm listening, but please don't cop out by presenting some observable item for which there are other plausible conclusions, all the while waxing on about how it must mean macro evolution has happened.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, just saying the whole thing is a yarn built on speculation is being rather childish. Your follow up to that is self serving.

                An argument to support your claims, sir, if you please. What exactly is wrong with evolution?

                If you really don't know anything about it, allow me to offer the two simple postulates, so you may have a starting point.

                1. Natural Selection
                2. Diversity of Species

                These are in essence, the two basic requirements for evolution. Do you see a problem with either one? If so, what is the problem and why is it a problem?

                1. bBerean profile image60
                  bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  As anticipated, you don't have, (because there is not), a single fact exclusively supporting your beliefs.

                  1. Link10103 profile image80
                    Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    As anticipated, you don't seem to be interested in discussion rather than just declaring stuff.

                    I know my understanding of theories is lacking, with me not being a scientist and all, but if evolution is a theory, how is anyone supposed to give you facts proving it to be true? Supporting evidence is what you want, which I thought natural selection and diversity of species fell under. You still haven't specified what is wrong with either or what other plausible explanations there could be.

                  2. cjhunsinger profile image71
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    bBerean

                    It is reasonable that facts or a reasoned proof of a claim should be submitted should a request be made. So, lets begin with what the claim of evolution is based on. Once this information is submitted, I think it then would be in the reasoned best interest of the unbeliever to research that information and not simply dismiss it out of hand due to a bias or prejudice
                    Unlike a creationist position of, god said it and therefore I believe, evolution does not demand believe under penalty of damnation, but appeals to ones ability to reason and obviously such talent is not evenly distributed among humans. It is like capitalism and wealth.
                    " A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts." Stephen Gould
                    1. The universal genetic code.  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended."
                    From this humanity can be traced from 'now' going back some 200,000 years, the advent of the homo sapiens-sapiens to around 2,5 billion years ago to the first living cell with a nucleus
                    2. The fossil record. 3. Genetic commonalities.  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
                    4. Common traits in embryos. "Pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor."
                    5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.
                    This information is partially copied from various sites pertaining to the evolution  of humanity. Such information is easily found.
                    Truth is very difficult to define and I think that the search of such an elusive element begins with the process of objective reasoning. That is to say that an open mind is the first requirement.
                    Here are five points that give credibility to the claim of evolution, now it is up to you to take these points, examine them, research their individual claims and foundation for such claims and return with a objective response.

                  3. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, we would like to see an argument, not just a meaningless, dishonest denial.

    2. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The other 1.3% is sugar and spice.

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That only covers the girls.

        1. cjhunsinger profile image71
          cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          bBerean

          Not only are you prone to make religionistic statements, now sexist claims as well.

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hey, everyone knows this is true about girls.  wink

          2. Link10103 profile image80
            Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's a bit of a stretch CJ, even for you.

            Growing up watching the Powerpuff Girls, can't say I found anything wrong with it.

    3. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is a big difference between monkey's and ape's.

    4. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Just read that. It may be a good idea to start with getting yourself educated. Bonobos are not monkeys. Bonobos are apes like chimps. Monkeys have tails, we do not. Which bring up an interesting point. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. In rare cases humans are born with tails, it's called Human vestigiality, which is another piece in the puzzle of evolution. We have the remnants of organs we no longer use, but once did and some other mammals still do. The appendix, wisdom teeth, the vomeronasal organ, ear muscles that don't appear to move the ear and yet in some people the muscles function and list goes one.

      1. Cat333 profile image82
        Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        My top two wisdom teeth are both in use, having replaced my top two back molars. That's their intended use and they are VERY useful. Of course people get them pulled and can't use them as intended.

        According to some, the wisdom teeth won't move forward into the molar's spot and align nicely with the rest of the teeth. But mine both did.


        This about the appendix from US Health Works may interest you:

        Science has discovered mysterious immune-modifying cells in the appendix. These seem to serve a function in training our immune system. It is important for the body to get straight which germs to fight against and which ones to peacefully coexist.

        Besides possibly having an immune system function, the lowly appendix turns out to be a well-built tubular structure handy for rebuilding internal body parts. Urinary tract reconstructions frequently make use of the appendix. So we stopped removing a normal appendix when we were there for another reason.

        The whole treatment of acute appendicitis has been evolving. Traditionally there was one, and only one treatment for acute appendicitis – remove it. Recent studies show antibiotics work in treating the acute appendicitis, and work as well as surgery. It’s certainly a heck of a lot easier on the patient to use antibiotics.

        Once again, the more you study the human body, the more you appreciate the design. We’ve learned that even something as lowly as the appendix is there for a reason.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Funny, you didn't explain the vomeronasal organ or ear muscles.

          1. Cat333 profile image82
            Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't have knowledge of them, but it's probably out there (I didn't research it). And even if undiscovered thus far, if people can discover that the appendix really has a purpose after they thought not for so long, I'm sure the purpose of the others is present and may someday come to light. Now the wisdom teeth, that's just plain obvious how that would continue to benefit us, lol!

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Wisdom teeth? I had two of them removed. Without dentistry I would have most likely have had a serious infection at a rather young age, but I wouldn't have lived long enough for that without having my appendix removed when I was 13. Do you think God put those things there just to cause us harm or do you think it was part of our evolution? Why again do we have all those muscles for our ears that we don't use? Why again are some humans born with tails?

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                All four of mine had to go in my 20's.  As humanity eats less and less of harder plant life we don't need them and are evolving away from them as our jaw shrinks.  Many people (I'm one of them) simply do not have the room for 4 extra large molars; the jaw is not large enough to accommodate them) and as the evolution progresses some people never get them at all.  Just one of the ways we're still evolving.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It's also the same reason some people can move their ears and some can't. I'm one that can't which makes me more evolved. LOL.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I like it!  Evolution gave man our intelligence; I must have an increase of at least .001 IQ points above the average!

                2. Cat333 profile image82
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  We certainly do change according to environment! No arguments there!

              2. Cat333 profile image82
                Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Your heart can have/cause problems and kill you too, so the fact that something can become diseased and problematic absolutely does NOT indicate it was useless. Because they've now found there were unknown uses to the appendix and that antibiotics treat appendicitis, they are increasingly treating it with antibiotics rather than removing it. Wisdom teeth can certainly become a problem, but they can also work as intended, as my top two have. In the past before dentists people would have needed wisdom teeth far more than today, so they were certainly a useful design!

                I've done zero research on ear muscles, so I'm not in a position to answer you on that one.

                The "tails" can be a variety of things from a growth to a prolonged vertebrae. Many are simply fatty tissue and no bone. It's like other abnormalities upon birth - the girl in India born with four arms and four legs, or babies born missing various parts.

                Why exactly would we be theorized to go through the stages of evolution within the womb? And why would we (humans, apes and allegedly common ancestors) ever lose something as extremely USEFUL as those tails are to creatures, when natural selection would be at play to maintain these useful aspects and increase not decrease them?

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  True, your heart can kill you. But I've lived without my tonsils or appendix just for quite some time now. It appears that while they both my play some kind of small role that cause far more harm than good. For hundreds of thousands of years he had no antibiotics or surgeries to remove them when they can kill us. From a design standpoint they are an error. From an evolutionary standpoint they are organs that evolution is taking care of. Our diets changed and we no longer used the appendix for what it had evolved to do so it's functions diminished.

                  It telling and interesting that we still have the muscles to move our ears, but few of us have the ability to use them. Chimps are somehow in the same boat as us in that regard.

                  Then there is the plica semilunaris, the palmar grasp reflex, male nipples, arrector pili and the list goes on.

                  1. Cat333 profile image82
                    Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry to hear you had trouble with your appendix and tonsils. They are still both useful organs in most people, and probably even more so than we've yet discovered - the tonsils are the body's first line of defense against inhaled / ingested pathogens (see the earlier post about the function/benefits of the appendix). Certainly as we change and adapt, some of these things may become less useful, more problematic and so on. That still demonstrates nothing about the greater theory of common ancestry, and simply that we evolve / change (which no one disputes).

                    We're designed to survive for a time on this earth and then die so that we can enter eternity. All of our organs, from the most vital to the least vital, can present problems. This is not a flaw of design, but a part of the foretold "death" that entered in.

                    Grasping and such can be useful to an infant, especially in certain times and places. And perhaps it was more pronounced and more useful in the past. Again, no one is saying we don't change / evolve, even those of us who haven't accepted the theory of common ancestry. As for male nipples: the embryo follows a 'female template', and it's the effect of the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that makes the embryo male, causing the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before the male process begins, the nipples remain. Arrector pili (goose bumps) make the hair stand up when cold to keep us warmer. We probably had more hair in the past when people were out in the elements more, and men had more hair because they were out hunting and such even more. Yet again, we agree that changes based on environment have and will continue to occur.

  2. bBerean profile image60
    bBereanposted 2 years ago

    I am very familiar with the stories of evolution.  Granted there are so many variations nobody can be privy to them all, but going to the stories is to get ahead of ourselves.  I have asked for a single fact which exclusively supports the macro evolution myths, and nobody can provide one.  At least CJ tried, giving 5 things he thinks might be such facts but none of them reveal anything that wouldn't be expected if a common designer made all things and engineered in fascinating adaptability.  Not macro evolution, mind you, but still impressive adaptability.  So are you ready to concede there is no such exclusive fact supporting macro evolution so we can move on to other problems with the stories and their premise?  If not, please provide the fact for review.  I will check back later.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I've seen many "definitions" of the macro evolution you reference.  Can you give your own definition that you are using when you claim there are no examples?

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Wilderness.  I have a lot of work to get done today, but am looking in occasionally, so for the sake of time allow me to paste these from someone else.  Not super detailed but probably sufficient to convey the point for our purposes:

        " Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

        Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog."


        I make the distinction because the only defenses I have ever seen for speculating that macro evolution is real considers micro evolution, or more appropriately, adaptability, as it's proof.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting.  I discussed the question once with someone that said it was evolution of anything bigger than a bacteria.  Then bigger than a fruit fly.  Then bigger than a mouse and finally (after being given examples of everything asked for) she redefined macro evolution as a cat giving birth to a dog on every street corner in full view of herself.  Laughable, but sad at the same time - her belief was simply NOT to be challenged; "I believe; don't confuse me with facts.".

          The point is that that definition continually changes, from the smaller changes to ever larger.  The most common definition used to be a species change (cannot interbreed) but you now demand a change in class.  All while knowing that evolution does not provide for any such change in time frames shorter than man has been around but still insisting there is no proof.  There is no proof because you do not wish to understand the biology of animals but instead use the old excuse that "God can do anything" as an answer as to why whales exhibit so many land dwelling attributes.  To go from "large changes can be seen in animals as they evolve" to "But those changes can never result in a change of class as God could have done it" just doesn't make sense.  The conclusion is based on religious belief instead of any real knowledge of how the world works.

          It obviously works for you, but most of us would rather use deductive reasoning to find an answer that fits in with the rest of our knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It seems you support my point, then.  Evolution is a cornerstone in the belief systems rightly placed under the umbrella of "scientism".   Macro evolution is certainly not a fact, just a speculative idea many embrace.  Once we can agree on that we can look closer at the many assumptions it is built on.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I know.  It is convenient to apply the label "belief system" to hard work and much research as if it were a religious belief as an effort to reduce that effort to the same kind of thing religion is based on.  The difference might be analogous to my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, based on not only my personal experience of some 24,000 days that it DID rise coupled with the same experience of thousands of others, with the belief in a god.  One has a great deal of supporting evidence, the other has nothing but desire and belief that it is true.

              It just doesn't work.  One is an honest effort to understand and has much to recommend it, while the other has nothing BUT belief as support.   Nothing wrong with belief without supporting evidence as it keeps a great many people happy and content, but it just isn't a reason to degrade our best efforts at understanding to the same level.

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                We disagree.  I appreciate genuine science.  The actual facts.  I consider all the accumulative speculation about those facts as a belief system and scientism as a religion.  I realize defending that premise means making a big case of it, so let's just leave it as my opinion and I'll show my reasoning some time when I have the time to do it in Hubs.  Until then, I am just making clear my view.  Still, even if the "religion" charge requires support, the "belief" part should be obvious.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you said it better than I did.  The "premise" of evolution is the thousands of observed facts (fossil and geological records, DNA comparisons, etc.), from which a logical conclusion can be reached.  That the conclusion cannot be directly observed does mean it could be wrong, but it is the best we have.

                  The "premise" of religion, however, cannot be found or observed.  IT is the "belief system", not the conclusions reached (although because the premise is unproven they, too, are a belief).  As the premise is unproven it is NOT the best we have.  It may be right, but we have no way of knowing that through either observation OR logical deduction/induction.

                  To equate the two "beliefs" then is not a reasonable tactic.  They are very much different and are not comparable at all.  Only the vagaries of the English language allows such comparison as the thinking and reasoning process behind each are 180 degrees apart.

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Again we disagree.   Macro evolution is pure speculation and assumptions built on speculations and assumptions.  None of the facts, individually or collectively, conclusively or exclusively point to it.  We will continue to disagree here as it is at spirituality that we part ways.  Consistent with scripture, spiritual discernment is required to understand the "big picture" if you will, and those who deny spirituality, considering it foolishness and/or imagination will never see it since it is beyond the material world they restrict themselves to. 

                    In understanding that "big picture" I have found this to be as valid and reliable a source of clarification and understanding as my physical senses are to the material world.  Therefore I cannot prove to you the agenda that drives the desire people have to exclude a creator, or the spiritual influences supporting them to do so on a level of which they are not even aware.  Again, no point going there as we have been round and round before.  I am just explaining why we see this differently.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Repeating your denials over and over is not an argument, it is just plain denial, obviously in light of your creationist worldview. Just like Ken Ham. There's no reasoning with you at all.

    2. cjhunsinger profile image71
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      bBerean

      I have to question the honesty of your reply, with regard to your claim that you are familiar with the points that I put forward. There is no indication in any of your posts, with me or others, that you have any knowledge or understanding of these points.

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But, if you were familiar, we would be hearing a valid argument, but we are hearing only denial.



      That would show you don't know anything about evolution.



      But, that is not your claim.



      But, you don't understand evolution, so the facts would not make sense to you. But, we can now see your agenda of religious beliefs in a creator. Obviously, facts are irrelevant to you.



      It would you will not be putting forth an argument, hence there is no point in your posts, they are merely troll bait.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    How did cave men escape / evolve from the 100 % ape genetic code they started with?
    Very fishy.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Men never did have 100% "ape" code; whatever gave you that idea?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I thought it was the theory of evolution… we evolved from apes…at some point there were only apes… but then from them, cave-men evolved...thats the percent we are pondering, right?
        or did apes and man evolve from Big Foot?

        So confusing.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It's not confusing if you, like deBerean would take the time to actually learn something about evolution, you too would understand it.

          But, it's obvious that's asking way too much from you believers.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That both man and apes evolved from bigfoot is more accurate.  If, at least, you wish to name our common ancestor "bigfoot".  The point is that man was never an ape - that far back we weren't even that far up the evolutionary scale.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We are reasoning apes that evolved before apes
            ...something like that?

        3. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You most certainly are confused. We are still apes.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We are???

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              According to the taxonomy charts, yes.  The gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan and man are all classified as the great apes.  The term "ape" has a very specific in biology (and evolution) and is not the common definition of all the lesser apes, great apes and monkeys. 
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

              Earlier, however, I spoke of the common usage, where the entire group of monkeys and apes are lumped into one.  We were never any of those animals, although we DID have a common ancestor with many of not all of them.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                ...then what did you mean by this:
                "The point is that man was never an ape - that far back we weren't even that far up the evolutionary scale."

                ... then what were we? pre apes? what is a pre ape? When did the ability to reason come into existence? when/ how did our large brain evolve? We have superior abilities compared to apes. How did we get our very superior abilities? How did we loose body hair?
                PS I have taken Anthropology.  I don't remember anything.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Whoops; crossed posts.  Check the one above again, where that is explained.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "we DID have a common ancestor"
                    ... what was it?
                    - did we always have more capacity to reason than the apes?
                    if so,
                    Why?
                    There is only one conclusion:
                    God must have done it.

                2. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Superior abilities?  As in stronger?  More able to withstand temperature variations?  Faster?

                  I don't think so.  In only one attribute can we beat out apes, and that is our mind.  Other things, such as the ability to vocalize better, are sidelines that perhaps help, but that's all.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You mean talk to each other???
                    You mean use tools better?
                    You mean …????
                    We run much faster than apes.
                    We swim faster than apes.
                    We do handstands better than apes!
                    You mean...???
                    Our faces are more beautiful and our bodies are more beautiful.
                    (Please don't tell me I am racist!)

                    … and all the result of RANDOM genetic mutation!
                    No, it was God. smile

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    BTW
    Hawking wrote:
    "...I was interested in the question of whether there had been a big bang singularity, because that was crucial to an understanding of the origin of the universe.  …I developed a new set of mathematical techniques for dealing with this… We showed that if general relativity is correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe *should* begin: For that, one would have to appeal to God." pg. 91
      "… I now think that … the laws of physics can… determine *how* the universe began…In order to discuss the theory of the universe, we need a theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics." Pg. 92

    Huh?

    "That theory is quantum gravity."

    Oh, now I get it. Of course! roll


      (Excerpts from: Black Holes and Baby Universes
    by Stephen Hawking. Published September 1st 1994 by Bantam Books)

  5. bBerean profile image60
    bBereanposted 2 years ago

    CJHunsinger and EncephaloiDead,

    If you find you are completely unable to meet the challenge of producing any genuine facts that exclusively support macro evolution having ever occurred, (not just speculation and conjecture), you may want to do as you often do and employ an immature, but sometimes effective diversionary tactic such as attacking my intelligence and/or knowledge.  Granted, neither are relevant to your failure to elevate your belief system to anything more significant, but at least perhaps folks will follow the new bunny down a trail and forget about it. 

    Oh wait, please disregard as I see you have already done that.  Nevermind. 

    Rad and Wilderness, I was only able to pop in for a few minutes here, but will address your last posts when I can.  If not tonight, then probably this weekend.  Sooner if time allows.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      We both understand the facts and the evidence of which there is plenty. I already provided two of postulates, which are facts.

      But, that isn't the issue here, YOU stated there was something wrong with evolution, but have made no argument whatsoever. It is obvious you're incapable of making an argument because you don't know a thing about evolution. This is not a diversionary tactic, it is fact that you're using to make denials.

      We understand, you don't. But, that's not a problem because the scientific community will continue to find more facts and evidence regarding evolution, and we will learn much more,while the scientific illiterate will continue to spout denials. Of course, over time, the scientific illiterate who wave their bibles to support creationism will eventually go the way of the dodo.

      smile

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Facts, facts, everywhere!
        How's there not a one to share? 

        No, you have not shared a single fact.  Neither has CJ.  Just yarns spun from whole cloth.  You call them a fact for your much speaking, which is typical.  "Thinking themselves wise"...it fits to well. 

        By now it's clear you have nothing, which is no surprise.  Bantering is pointless if you are just going to pretend you have countless facts at your disposal yet can't declare one. 

        One last time.  Do you have a single tangible, verifiable, genuine fact that exclusively supports your ridiculous claim that macro evolution has ever occurred anywhere but in the minds of  adherents to scientism? 

        Going forward let's politely call them "scientismists."  Surely if you do, one such as yourself could present it in such a manner that even those you perceive as uneducated, intellectually challenged, misinformed or simpletons could grasp it.  Show me what you consider one to be, and I will show you where your going wrong in thinking it fits the bill.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          If you do indeed know there is something wrong, you should be able to tell us. I don't understand your reasoning for me to begin guessing as to what that is, seems like some sort of childish game you wish to play.

          You see, that's how it works. You make a claim towards a topic in which you state the postulates, or any other fact contained within the theory, are wrong. You would use reason, facts and evidence that support your claim. You would have to understand the subject so well and have studied the evidence in such great detail to be capable of putting forth such a rebuttal, where so many others who were greater thinkers than you and I put together have failed.

          I even offered you something to start with...

          So, let's begin, do you think there is something wrong with Natural Selection? If so, what is it exactly?

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            All I have been doing from the get go here is exposing macro evolution as nothing more than another belief system.  No facts exclusively support it.   Two die hard believers in evolution have failed to produce one fact that does.  I have studied your belief system and have no interest in wasting further time with it.   I just tire of the constant posturing as though it is some real, proven, factual thing when it is nothing more than a whimsical idea far too many tax dollars have been wasted on and far too many people have been indoctrinated into accepting as true.   It has been exposed here.  I am satisfied with that.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So, you have no rebuttal, only denials. Then, your claims are just hot air balloons. No, you haven't studied evolution, that is obvious.

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You've yet to present even a single genuine fact to rebut, and I have no time or interest in simply reminiscing over the stories and myths that are the entire substance of your belief called evolution.  I will remain open to hearing what you consider a genuine fact exclusively supporting macro evolution in the event you ever think you've found one.  So far for all your talking you have offered nothing.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Here we have the problem of societies led by religions, folks who refuse learn anything about the world around them, noses buried deep within their holy books, teaching them to be dishonest and deny knowledge and understanding. It's little wonder there are so many conflicts in the world when these folks try to keep us in the Dark Ages, living with myths, superstitions and lies, all of which they are more than happy to repeat over and over to the detriment of us all, an embarrassment to mankind.

                  Like the Ray Comfort's and Ken Ham's of the world, they try to drag us down to their depths of ignorance, thumping their bibles with zealotry, attempting to shoot down anything that would jeopardize their ridiculous beliefs, but failing miserably because they have no clue what they're talking about.

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Big words for a fellow who has repeatedly failed to produce a single fact exclusively supporting macro evolution thereby also failing to elevate it beyond just being your faulty belief.  You keep asking what I see wrong with it while ignoring the challenge you can't meet, which represents my first problem with the myth of evolution.  Get past that one and we will go from there.

      2. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Really?  Lol.

        pos·tu·late
        verb
        verb: postulate; 3rd person present: postulates; past tense: postulated; past participle: postulated; gerund or present participle: postulating
        ˈpäsCHəˌlāt/

            1.
            suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
            "his theory postulated a rotatory movement for hurricanes"
            synonyms:    put forward, suggest, advance, posit, hypothesize, propose; More
            assume, presuppose, presume, take for granted
            "a theory postulated by a respected scientist"
           
        noun
        formal
        noun: postulate; plural noun: postulates
        ˈpäsCHələt/

            1.
            a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
            "perhaps the postulate of Babylonian influence on Greek astronomy is incorrect"

        I would like to postulate, (suggest or assume), this may help. wink

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This really is getting very childish. A distraction tactic? Wow.

        2. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          OMG! Are you channeling Katheryn?

          GA

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Looks like it.  yikes!

          2. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sometimes one can hardly resist.  wink

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ...and why not??? EncephaloIdead made it so much clearer! I, for one appreciated it very much.

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Truth is, Kathryn, while to some it may come across as a bit much, I suspect many benefit from your postings like this.  You usually do it when you feel some readers may need clarification on something, or you want to show something has been misrepresented.  In either case, a worthy gesture.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank You!

              2. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Actually that was me correcting EncephaloiDead's misconception that postulates are facts.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Edit
                  got cha…Ms Magoo here.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Q."Humans are 98.7% chimpanzee and bonobo monkeys and 1.3% what?"
    A. God.
    Sorry, but what is obvious is what is obvious! LOL!!!

  7. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    The postulates of Wallace and Darwin are just that, theories.  But more, neither had the background to make such statements as are attributed to them.  Their relationship is sketchy, with one "theory" being Wallace, a brave man in war but a failure in all else, was actually the developer of theories attributed to Darwin but the info was either plagerized by Darwin or purchased.  Wallace had no standing in London society and Darwin did.  So whose trumpet would sound the loudest.  Neither was an anthropologist.  Both were botanists or naturalists, whatever the needed term of the day might have been.  Some years ago we assigned folks of that mind set the label of "hippies."  Of late they would be called "tree-huggers."  One cannot fault their interest in society, except for Wallace socialist leanings and are free to follow their leadings.  But to try to make fact out of theory, without knowledge, is foolishness.

    But in reading the OP, I am pleased to find that, in some classification, I have finally made it out of the middle class and move up to the top 1.3%.  Just waiting for the money to roll in now.

    1. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting post, Mishpat.  ty.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I'm still waiting for my answers to my questions.

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Don't hold your breath. big_smile

        2. Jomine Jose profile image79
          Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          He already gave it to you - special pleading. When it comes to god illogic is logic.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "But in reading the OP, I am pleased to find that, in some classification, I have finally made it out of the middle class and move up to the top 1.3%.  Just waiting for the money to roll in now."
      lol

    3. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Oh dear. Not the "just a theory" nonsense again. Odd you cling to ancient myths and make that lame argument. Your relationship with majickal super beings is pretty sketchy. Evolution is fact. Deal with it.  wink

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So is God. Deal with it! smile

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry - proven science is not the same as your Imaginary Invisible Super Being. lol

          Deal with it. wink

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    -  the process of evolution reveals God and God explains the mysteries of evolution,
    obviously. cool

    1. Jomine Jose profile image79
      Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The Hangover or The Mask?

  9. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    It would indeed be refreshing to see the self indulgent "logical people" state their position using proofs rather than darts.

    I disagree with the OP and CJ on his premise but one can see he spent and does spend time looking for answers instead of portraying himself as one who has all the answers.  Though we may never agree, I appreciate his work and candor.  He doesn't stand in the shadows sniping.  He challenges the astute to study.  His responses highlight the ridiculous remarks on both sides of the Cross.  And he shows a little emotion on occasion.  A worthy adversary, Proverb 27:17.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why would think that? It was the self indulgent "believer" who made claims against evolution, yet produced nothing other than lame denials. What proofs exactly are you looking for? Have you not taken the time to learn about evolution?



      So, you too are making claims against the OP? What exactly do you disagree with and why? Please show peer reviewed articles to back up your claims. Thanks, I look forward to hearing your well thought out, evidence based, logical and rational argument against evolution, something we have yet to see.

      1. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Too make a claim against something, as you state, would seem to mean that it existed before.  I would submit that it is the reverse.  Natural selection or evolution, so called, appeared as a postulate in the mid 1800's.  God existed long before that.  So premise is wrong to begin.

        Peer review?  Not really sure what that is, but if it means whose writings do I present to support my belief, I would present the 40 plus writers of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So the concept of God existed before the concept of evolution therefore the concept of God is the correct one. You may need to work that logic out a little bit. It's like saying the concept of the sun orbiting the earth came before the concept of the earth orbiting the sun therefore the sun orbits the earth.

          1. mishpat profile image61
            mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I believe your initial Ptolemaic analogy is correct and eventually Copernicus proved it wrong.  The issue here is God has never been proven non-existent.  So until a "new Copernicus" comes along with that proof, all else is moot.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Again, logic eludes you. We can't prove something doesn't exist, we can only prove it does, so you are making the claim that God exist you must supply evidence. I could claim that the easter bunny exists and you would be unable to prove me wrong.

              I can however show you that no evidence for any Gods can be found besides written records of stories passed down for generation. I can also show you that people are easily fooled by such claims and point to many religions with false holy books as examples, but you most likely will dismiss that evidence and claim he just is.

              1. mishpat profile image61
                mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Correct, as the evidence is hypothesis, and supposition.  Understand, you have a right to believe as you will, as do others.  In place of hard proofs, we are obligated to approve that which we know by study and experience.

                And I'll catch to your following comment here also.  Hinduism as the oldest of religions is in debate.  Prior to the Flood was the god Enki/Enlil of the Sumer/Akkadian folks.  And prior to that were the od kings of Nippur.  Prior to that were the baals of humanism.  Prior to that is less that hypothesis, again, as Spock would say, "My best guess."

                Guess work science, the science of evolution, only gets a name on a certificate, round of drinks and maybe a nobel prize.  And proves that man really doesn't know but is fond of pretending.  "All is vanity" Ecclesiastes 1:14.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh dear, you are one of those who believes there was a global flood a few thousand years ago and all of humanity came from the few Arab survivors despite the lack of evidence and the conflicting genetic evidence.

                  Oh well. By your logic the first religion is the right one.

                  1. mishpat profile image61
                    mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Correct again.  And we should understand that religion is a set of rules which has, in most cases today, very little to do with God.

                    PS.  "Arabs" did not exist at that time.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, and it was pure guesswork that brought you the computer and internet connection you are now using to discredit science, amongst a host of other discoveries and technologies. Pure guesswork.

                  1. mishpat profile image61
                    mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    We seem to have come to an impasse so lets be foundational.  You have asked for proofs regarding my position.  The primary is the Bible.   My personal studies have led me to the conclusion that the Bible is provable, for the most part by common knowledge and common sense.  Therefore, I believe God exists.

                    Now you and "science" can show your proofs where the Bible is incorrect before we move on.  Logic, postulate, hypothesis, theories and subjective reasoning are not proofs, but feel free to present them.  However, I have little interest in websites and opinions of self made experts and pseudo-sciences.  I am interested in what you as an individual knows from personal study and experience.

              2. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                May I paraphrase an online friend here?  "Again, logic eludes you. We can't prove something doesn't exist, we can only prove it does, so you are making the claim that a method or process by which our existence is possible without a God exists, you must supply evidence. I could claim that the easter bunny exists and you would be unable to prove me wrong.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You are claiming that we exist because of God, but you can't supply evidence for that claim nor can you supply evidence that any God exists and the evidence that we do have conflicts of what we see in any of the the holy books. Fossil records are facts, Genetic records are facts, Geological records are facts. And those facts contradict what was written in any holy books.

                  You are akin to Muslim's who try to convince me that the earth is egg shaped.

                  Would you like to see the fossil records of humans going back millions of years of evolution?

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Anyone claiming with no proof whatsoever that there is a means possible by which our existence could come to be without a god, is making a positive claim they cannot defend.  There is no support for this imagined process or power, but it in effect becomes their god and the structure of speculation and assumption they construct to support their belief is in effect their religion.  I have been referring to it as scientism.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That is a logical fallacy. Leprechauns and unicorns also have never been proven non-existent. So what?

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, let me get this straight, your argument is based on the fact religion came before science, therefore religion is correct? Seriously?



          Peer review is the process in which scientists put forth their hypotheses for critique and scrutiny to the world so that others may poke holes and attempt to refute it. There MUST be in every hypothesis the capacity for falsifiability in that any given facts or evidence to the contrary can show the hypothesis is false.

          Hence, anyone who comes along to state such things that evolution is wrong must show facts and evidence that would refute it. No one has accomplished that.

          1. mishpat profile image61
            mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Again, the hypothesis you speak of comes after the existence of God.  So you have much study and words with no result, that being proving God does not exist.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hinduism is the oldest religion and they believe in multiple Gods. Since it came first it must be right.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I really have no idea what you're talking about.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                He seems to be under the delusion that if something came first it's correct.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That's what I thought too, but I can't believe anyone would use such a ridiculous argument?

  10. Link10103 profile image80
    Link10103posted 2 years ago

    It's shocking the lack of reading comprehension I see in theists on this site.

    1. mishpat profile image61
      mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I would be interested in your expanding on this comment.

      1. Link10103 profile image80
        Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Encephaloidead opened up the floor for you for a debate perfectly. You either ignored half the comment or didn't understand any of it.

        1. mishpat profile image61
          mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, I don't see that.  I see subterfuge.  When one asks a question, one expects a direct answer.  There was none, only an excuse why he has no proofs.  If you ask me for one of my foundational proofs on a subject such as psychology and I give you a dialogue on why I don't believe in psychology, then the request was not fulfilled.  If I missed something in our conversation, please show me where.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Science doesn't work on proofs. That is what you missed.

            1. mishpat profile image61
              mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Very good, we have agreement on something.  Science does not work on proofs.  The only thing left is "their best guess."  I can understand your confusion.  Charlatans of pseudo-sciences of geology, astronomy, palm reading (let see what else tickles the mind), oh yeah, evolutionary scientology, a mix of facts from proper fields of science and assumption.  But we are free to chose that which we believe, Proverb 14:12.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Would you like a link so that you can read about how science actually works?

                Of course, if what you say is true, then everything science has provided for you, including your computer, internet connection and these forums were all just best guesses? That is obviously absurd.



                Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want, even if it does contradict reality, no problem.; We are also free to expose and acknowledge those beliefs as irrational, illogical and delusional.

                1. mishpat profile image61
                  mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  A mix of guess work and qualified sciences is still guesswork.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And yet, the science that went into your smartphone, computer, internet connection and these forums was not guesswork, but instead, the meticulous, observational  rigor of people smarter than both of us put together making factual based predictions of the world around us and using that information to create those things you use almost every day.

                    There are other means to an end for theories. It was predicted there should be a background radiation, if indeed the Big Bang occurred as predicted.  Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, while building a radio telescope accidentally discovered the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" for which they both received the Nobel Prize.

                    With this information and the latest detection technology, they can now map out what the visible universe looks like. I suppose if you wish to call all of this guesswork and not see for yourself how science actually works, that's fine, you can believe what you want to believe.

                    http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WMAP_2010.png

  11. Cat333 profile image82
    Cat333posted 2 years ago

    Adaptation and related change for the purposes of surviving and thriving is a fact, and this is the ONLY fact within Evolution Theory.

    Everything else is inference, all circumstantial and all explained as readily by the "common" Creator of all things, who created things to adapt and change for purposes of survival.

    Good posts, bBerean!

    The biggest problems I have with Evolution Theory are: 1) It's pushed on us (falsely as factual) with demands for unquestioning acceptance, despite its reliance on inferences and circumstantial "evidence"; 2) It is altogether unproven AND un-provable in its entirety (because of the necessary inferences); 3) It was developed and is pushed in order to remove God our Creator from the picture; 4) at best macroevolution would explain a "process" and still not do away with the need for intelligent design, as NO amount of time can make possible without design the existence of all we have within us and within our universe (anyone able to convince themselves of this VASTLY underestimates all there is to the universe and each and every thing within the universe); 5) It's nonsensical when you take a step back from it, and those who seem to find it sensible are those who strongly DESIRE that it make sense, and those types who can see "trees" but lose sight of the "forest" (hey, there's trees - changes, similar DNA and structures, etc. - it must mean...); 6) Even if it doesn't contradict with a more symbolic interpretation of Genesis (I don't have full assurance on the literal versus symbolic interpretation of Genesis), I believe it contradicts with a basic truth within the faith - that we were made in God's image (though I understand some argue that we were eventually made in his image); 7) Evolution Theory is inherently racist in nature, as people would be evolving at different rates, and it is UNSUPPORTED in its inherently racist stance - the similarities amongst different groups within the human race are too great and the differences too small (e.g., given the same environment, the IQs of different "races" are strikingly similar considering the likelihood of ENORMOUS differences if the assertions within Evolution Theory were truly at work). Given the amount of time people have existed, we should see MUCH GREATER differences amongst groups if Evolution Theory's postulates were correct.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution rests on two basic facts: 1) mutations DO occur, and 2) statistically, individuals most fit to survive do so while those least fit for their environment do not.

      Which do you disagree with?  Do you feel that mutations never happen?  Or that, on a statistical basis over thousands or millions of individuals those with the best fit to their ecological niche will survive?

      Or is it your feeling that individuals do not pass their genetic material to their offspring?

      1. Cat333 profile image82
        Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "Evolution" may rest on those two facts, but "Evolution Theory" unfortunately steps far beyond those facts, relying on inferences, and then many falsely claim those inferences are as factual as the actual facts. So it is not the facts upon which it stands that are the problems, but it is the inferences treated as facts that are the problems. But nice try.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          If you accept those two ideas, you must also accept the basis of evolution; that mutations occur and that succeeding generations will be changed by those mutations.  The cumulative effect seems pretty straightforward; that species change over time and thousands or millions of generations.

          Yes?

          1. Cat333 profile image82
            Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I agree that "mutations occur and that succeeding generations will be changed by those mutations". Creation MUST adapt and change in order to survive. So whether we accept evolution theories, creationism, some combination thereof, or anything else, we'll predict adaption and change via mutations.

            The inferences about life "thousands or millions of generations" ago are still necessarily inferences. There's not even agreement on the accuracy of dating methods, let alone the common ancestry of current life forms. There's also plenty of evidence that contradicts evolution theory. Further, the evidence alleged to support the inferences within evolution theory (i.e., common ancestry) are all circumstantial and easily explained by the alternative explanation of a common Creator.

            Because I don't hold to a necessarily literal view of the creation account, I won't say anything with certainty regarding many of the assertions within evolution theory (only that I know with certainty that God is the Creator of all things). However, the circumstantial nature of all the "evidence" and the reliance on inferences make the theory as a whole both weak and un-provable.

        2. Link10103 profile image80
          Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Do you feel that mutations never happen?  Or that, on a statistical basis over thousands or millions of individuals those with the best fit to their ecological niche will survive?

          Or is it your feeling that individuals do not pass their genetic material to their offspring?"


          So, was your comment supposed to discredit those 3 questions so you wouldnt have to answer them? Or Did you just purposely ignore them to get your barb in?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Mutations occur in a proactive way to ensure survival of a species in some form…altered if need be.
            Case in point: Right before the industrial revolution, right BEFORE the air got smoggy, white and black moths became peppered. They were able to blend in better on trees after the smog and smoky air developed with pollution.
            Well, anyway I did a report on this in college and I believed it at the time. I know all will be laughing hysterically and there is no way to prove it.
            Never mind.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Bangs head against wall.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Stop! I said never mind! Please don't get a concussion on my account!!!

                (aaaugh! I should have known better… SORRY! )

                1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                  Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It is somewhat frustrating to see someone so apparently incapable of understanding - this is no doubt the reason for the head banging. You have given a perfect example of evolution at work yet completely misunderstood how it functions. Not sure it is worth trying to explain it any further. sad

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Is that evolution at work? She claims the moths changed in anticipation of an environmental change, not as a reaction to it. It sounds more like she would be advocating divine intervention.

                  2. cjhunsinger profile image71
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Righteous

                    Thought the following may be of interest.

                    "Neanderthals and humans first mated 50,000 years ago, DNA reveals"
                    By Charles Q. Choi
                    Published October 22, 2014

                    The DNA from the 45,000-year-old bone of a man from Siberia is helping to pinpoint when modern humans and Neanderthals first interbred, researchers say.

                    "Although modern humans are the only surviving human lineage, others once lived on Earth. The closest extinct relatives of modern humans were the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia until they went extinct about 40,000 years ago. Recent findings revealed that Neanderthals interbred with ancestors of modern humans when modern humans began spreading out of Africa 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone living outside Africa today is Neanderthal in origin."

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem is you think everything thinks, including evolution. A mutation happens and if beneficial the mutation stays, if it's detrimental if dies. By your way of thinking all the species that have died off must have anticipated a way of going extinct.

                  The Peppered moth an example of natural selection. During the English industrial revolution much of the light coloured peppered moths died out because they were no longer camouflaged because of the darkening of trees. The dark moths flourished because could hid in the darkened trees. When the environment improved the light coloured peppered moths returned in numbers.

          2. Cat333 profile image82
            Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The facts are fine and agreed with, and were not being ignored. The point is that these simple facts do NOT imply anything beyond themselves. Evolution Theory steps beyond the facts into the unknown and there makes inferences that we're instructed to believe as factually as the actual facts.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    The moths were dark and light colored to avoid being picked off the  trunks of dark and light trees by birds. The instinct of self-preservation was at work in the genetic code of the moths. How did this level of survival intelligence even occurr in the first place? Mutations through mere chance?  It just doesn't seem like it.
    What about the Fibonacci series occurring in all of nature?
    How about horses evolving in size until they became the perfect size for humans…?  How trees came along to provide an environment for winged and climbing creatures? Anything that occurs in evolution proves the existence of invisible blueprints… a destiny, almost…. well, maybe exactly.

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Probably majick huh? lol

      How many species have gone extinct do you think? As a percentage of all that have existed. What happened to their instinct of self preservation? Did god hate them?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        If they went extinct, they went extinct. Maybe their ability to survive or even their usefulness was up. No need to think about an imaginary creature with human-like emotions destroying them. Whatever force is behind Mother Nature, it is mysterious and very intelligent.
         
        And it is aware of the whole picture. Everything is in harmony with everything…. except us... and we could care less.  Well, not all of us.  But, we ALL need to care and cooperate with the intelligence behind nature…

        It is a start to at least acknowledge it.

        For instance, if cell phone use, (if electromagnetic radiation could affect bees, hypothetically) were destroying the bee populations which are vital for the growth of fruits, flowers and vegetables...
        would we stop using cell phones?

        By tuning in to the 1.3% part within each of us, we would care enough to consciously cooperate with Mother Nature.

        According to Me.

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It would be a start to understand it, not make up majickal intelligence where none exists. Clearly you are not interested. We know what is killing the bees and there are strong efforts afoot to prevent it. I guess you are not really interested in that either huh? sad

          Please don't tar me with the same brush as yourself. I am tuned in, I know what the bee problem is and I am doing my best to help with that because I am actually tuned in instead of positing nonsense to fill the blanks I don't understand.

          By being willfully ignorant - you are the one tuning out. sad

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What happened to the instinct in the genetic code of the Atlas Bear, Sivatherium, Koala Lemur, Canary Islands Giant Rats, Western Black Rhinoceros, Chinese Elephant, Stegodon, Saber-toothed cat?

      BTW, that thing about the horse evolving to be the perfect size for humans to ride was very funny. Talk about arrogance.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Probably that is why the dinosaurs died out - they were the wrong size for humans to ride. lol

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          lol hmm lol

      2. Jomine Jose profile image79
        Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I missed it! !
        Now I know why god created christians,  otherwise world would be such a drab.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I wonder if he created the mosquito to keep down the human population in countries with a warm climate or the guinea worm to cause pain and suffering to the less fortunate? Perhaps birds to remind us we need to invent the airplane? Perhaps bears to remind us we don't have to be able to outrun the bear, just whoever is accompanying us?

          Why didn't he make a bird big enough for us to ride?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            He just told me, 'Because birds will not obey directions like a horse will."

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Birds are untrainable? Well that's not true, but if it were why didn't he make them trainable?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Birds do not obey directions like a horse will. Because birds were meant to fly in the treetops, consume the seeds of fruits and redistribute them for the sake of propagating the many species of trees, which by the way, were designed to provide fruit for bats, animals, insects, primates which eat fruit and humans who eat fruit.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So there are no trained falcons?

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry Kathryn, this is just too silly for me, I'm out of here.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You're the one wanting to fly around on a great big falcon.

                3. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Or were bats and people designed to be able to take advantage of the fruits the trees produce?

                  If you choose it the other way, why?  What evidence is used to make the claim, bearing in mind that plants appeared on the planet before animals did?  Just because one way makes evolution possible and the other requires magic from heaven?

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You mean theists in general... and yes, it would be DRAB without us!!! cool

          1. Jomine Jose profile image79
            Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Christians. .. none else displays such ignorance and dishonesty.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              This is an example of drastic impoliteness.

            2. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Holy Cow! (no wait, that's the wrong analogy) You really are confident in your beliefs aren't you.

              GA

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                what?

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That was a reply to Jomine Jose. if you reread the thread you will answer your own "what".

                  GA

    3. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You mean like the Clydesdale that is too big for anyone to ride?  Or the Shetland that is too small?

      Horses come in all sizes and humans make appropriate use of the differing sizes.  No outside intelligence involved; just the intelligence of picking the right horse for the job.  Or camel.  Or donkey.  Or mule.  Or dog.  Humans use a variety of animals for a variety of jobs; that the one labeled "horse" fits best for riding does not indicate anything beyond mere chance.  (Don't forget, there WERE no horses in the new world until man brought them there.)

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        - chance, as far as you know… Thank you for not asking me for proof.

 
working