Apes descended from Humans – NOT the other way around.

[roughdraft274]

Ancestor? It is a fossil that contradicts some theories so it means more research is needed according to the OP

Exactly what do you think that fossil is of?

 

[marduc]

No fossils are needed to show the progression. Using DNA just shows general information

Actually it is the exact opposite of what you say.

Fossils are not needed to show we are related, and DNA gives extremely specific information.

You may be an ape I am not

You are most certainly absolutely unequivocally an ape, in exactly the same way that you are a primate, a mammal, a chordate, an animal, and a eukaryote.

 

[ptif219]

Exactly what do you think that fossil is of?

An ancient life species. As I said it shows more research is needed

 

[ptif219]

Actually it is the exact opposite of what you say.

Fossils are not needed to show we are related, and DNA gives extremely specific information.



You are most certainly absolutely unequivocally an ape, in exactly the same way that you are a primate, a chordate, an animal, and a eukaryote.

No DNA only show our DNA and apes DNA are similar. It does not answer any questions about evolution

Here is my point is a Siberian Husky which I own one related direcetly to a Wolf?

Dog Breeds: The Siberian Husky - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

The Siberian husky often resembles a fox though the breed is not related to the wolf any more closely than any other breed of dogs

USATODAY.com - Genes say some dogs have a lot in common with wolves

Two branches of the canine family tree were the earliest to diverge from the wolves, the study found.

One branch includes the oriental breeds Shar-Pei, Shiba Inu, chow chow and Akita; the other includes the seemingly diverse breeds of African basenji, Siberian husky, Alaskan malamute, Afghan hound and Saluki.

 

[The Mark]

DNA but no proof of fossils. I say that is circumstantial at best

I didn't say no fossils.

I said majority is DNA based. Not all, majority.

For the reasons explained by marduc, fossils aren't all that common.

On the other hand, the current species of apes and humans are fairly common, so comparisons between their DNA that discover identical markers in both DNA samples are a good source of information.

You are wrong according to others here that say we did not descend from apes but apes and humans have a common species they evolved from.

My understanding is that, according to the theory of evoloution as currently formatted, humans and apes had a common ape-like ancestor. Humans diverged in one direction, and apes in another.

So you are more about condemning Christians than talking about evolution

I have no idea where you got that idea about marduc. Nothing in his post gives any indication of such that I can see.

 

[ptif219]

I didn't say no fossils.

I said majority is DNA based. Not all, majority.

For the reasons explained by marduc, fossils aren't all that common.

On the other hand, the current species of apes and humans are fairly common, so comparisons between their DNA that discover identical markers in both DNA samples are a good source of information.

My understanding is that, according to the theory of evoloution as currently formatted, humans and apes had a common ape-like ancestor. Humans diverged in one direction, and apes in another.
I have no idea where you got that idea about marduc. Nothing in his post gives any indication of such that I can see.

He gave a link that showed me it was a Christian hit piece by MSNBC

As for the DNA it gives general information that can be read different ways by different scientists then you end up with different opinions as with what I showed about Huskies.

 

[The Mark]

He gave a link that showed me it was a Christian hit piece by MSNBC.

I must have missed that - what link?

As for the DNA it gives general information that can be read different ways by different scientists then you end up with different opinions as with what I showed about Huskies.

I only slightly understand the science of how DNA is compared, but my understanding was that some aspects were in question, but not the whole.

Perhaps that is incorrect, but it seemed that way from what I did understand.

 

[ptif219]

I must have missed that - what link?

Post 1515

I only slightly understand the science of how DNA is compared, but my understanding was that some aspects were in question, but not the whole.

Perhaps that is incorrect, but it seemed that way from what I did understand.

The point is DNA may show a close comparison but what that means is upto the interpretation of each scientists.

I have been told Huskies are not related to wolves but as you see one article I posted says they are while the other article seems to say they are not.

Without the fossil proof I am not sure DNA proves anything more than the 2 DNA's have similar make ups which proves little. Without the common species and a progression of apes and human from that species we prove very little.

 

[Verthaine]

You may be an ape I am not

No,but you are a primate.
Are you going to deny that also?

 

[Alfons]

That article doesn't disprove evolution.

The completely evolution is a fake theory, only very stupid people can believe it, there are too much evidences which clearly disprove this cheating.
Whatever I completely agree only one, that atheists are closely relatives of apes.

 

[The Mark]

The completely evolution is a fake theory, only very stupid people can believe it, there are too much evidences which clearly disprove this cheating.
Whatever I completely agree only one, that atheists are closely relatives of apes.

I see indications that the hilarity level in this thread may increase to epic.

 

[The Mark]

Post 1515

You mean this?

---------------------------------------------
Since I dropped his name here is a link to AronRa's channel: ‪AronRa's Channel‬‏ - YouTube

A lot of great videos there, I recommend his Foundational falsehoods series, from part 6 (I think) onwards they are all rather topical to this discussion (evolution in general, and a fair amount of emphasis specifically on hominid evolution)

That's a link to a YouTube channel, not an "MSNBC hit piece."

Not sure what you’re getting at here.

The point is DNA may show a close comparison but what that means is upto the interpretation of each scientists.

I have been told Huskies are not related to wolves but as you see one article I posted says they are while the other article seems to say they are not.

Without the fossil proof I am not sure DNA proves anything more than the 2 DNA's have similar make ups which proves little. Without the common species and a progression of apes and human from that species we prove very little.

To the best of my limited understanding, there are identical markers in apes and humans that strongly indicate a common ancestry – the debate is not over that aspect, but rather over what precise form the common ancestry took.

Or so I understand.

 

[ptif219]

No,but you are a primate.
Are you going to deny that also?

Thats what scientists say

 

[ptif219]

You mean this?

That's a link to a YouTube channel, not an "MSNBC hit piece."

Not sure what you’re getting at here.

To the best of my limited understanding, there are identical markers in apes and humans that strongly indicate a common ancestry – the debate is not over that aspect, but rather over what precise form the common ancestry took.

Or so I understand.

I clicked on it and a msnbc piece about Perry and christians came up. Mike Bickel was speaking.

If he has a link to you tube it should go to the one he wants you to see

You mean like some say we are closer to chimps and some say we are closer to orangatang.

As I say scientists can not agree but yet we are supposed to believe them,

 

[American]

If this theory is correct Apes evolved from humans which means evolution saying we came from apes is wrong

Well almost, accept that liberals came from apes, which then proves Evolution. :lol:

 

[The Mark]

I clicked on it and an msnbc piece about Perry and christians came up. Mike Bickel was speaking.

If he has a link to you tube it should go to the one he wants you to see.

Hmm.

Dunno, didn’t follow the link – perhaps he supplied an incorrect one, or some such?
Meh.

You mean like some say we are closer to chimps and some say we are closer to orangutan.
As I say scientists cannot agree but yet we are supposed to believe them

…

So let me get this straight.

• You are of the opinion that scientific peer review is broken because it is just scientists agreeing.
  
• You are of the opinion that evolution is an invalid theory because scientists cannot agree on all aspects of it.

You can’t have it both ways.

I am positive that evolution went through a peer review process of some sort, and that the new information which changes parts of it also goes through a peer review process…

Thus by your lights scientists must have agreed on it – and yet now you are saying that they can’t agree on it.

My previous statements are supported by your own words – science and scientists disagree, debate, and attempt to prove their hypotheses to their peers (peer review), which prevents the majority of incorrect and faulty theories from being considered valid.

 

[ptif219]

Hmm.

Dunno, didn’t follow the link – perhaps he supplied an incorrect one, or some such?
Meh.

…

So let me get this straight.

• You are of the opinion that scientific peer review is broken because it is just scientists agreeing.
  
• You are of the opinion that evolution is an invalid theory because scientists cannot agree on all aspects of it.

You can’t have it both ways.

I am positive that evolution went through a peer review process of some sort, and that the new information which changes parts of it also goes through a peer review process…

Thus by your lights scientists must have agreed on it – and yet now you are saying that they can’t agree on it.

My previous statements are supported by your own words – science and scientists disagree, debate, and attempt to prove their hypotheses to their peers (peer review), which prevents the majority of incorrect and faulty theories from being considered valid.

Which is it. You can try and spin here but I am not concerned about peer review

Human Evolution: Our Closest Living Relatives, the Chimps | LiveScience

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

 

[The Mark]

Which is it. You can try and spin here but I am not concerned about peer review

Human Evolution: Our Closest Living Relatives, the Chimps | LiveScience

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

Quite obviously, they haven't decided yet.

It's one of them, but they are not sure which yet.

In short, they are still debating it and have yet to agree on the matter.

Various papers on both theories have probably passed peer review systems.

The scientists agreed that those papers were up to the standards of those peer review systems when they accepted them.


Edit: Further, both those articles in no way dispute the common ancestor theory - in fact the first one supports it fully - what they disagree on is what other descendent of that common ancestor is most similar to us.

If I understand correctly, the first article is saying that chimps are closest if you go by DNA evidence, whereas the second article is saying the orangutans are closest if you go by physical and behavioral similarities.

 

[ptif219]

Quite obviously, they haven't decided yet.

It's one of them, but they are not sure which yet.

In short, they are still debating it and have yet to agree on the matter.

Various papers on both theories have probably passed peer review systems.

The scientists agreed that those papers were up to the standards of those peer review systems when they accepted them.


Edit: Further, both those articles in no way dispute the common ancestor theory - in fact the first one supports it fully - what they disagree on is what other descendent of that common ancestor is most similar to us.

If I understand correctly, the first article is saying that chimps are closest if you go by DNA evidence, whereas the second article is saying the orangutans are closest if you go by physical and behavioral similarities.

So then we can not believe evolution because according to you they do not know.

 

[The Mark]

So then we can not believe evolution because according to you they do not know.

/facepalm

That is an incorrect interpretation of my words.

I'm saying that they haven't fully determined the specifics involved, but that the general picture has been in place for quite some time now.

That is in no way saying that they "do not know" - just that they do not know everything.


And even if I HAD said such a thing, why the hell would my opinion have any greater weight than yours?

 

[marduc]

ptif, I did not give the link to AronRa's channel for you, I gave it for anyone who is interested as an aside to my post. I suggested which series of videos others could watch if they were so interested. I have no control of what vids he uploads, or what would show as his latest video once he uploads it, and I did not see that vid on his home page when I linked anyhow.

Granted he does criticize Christianity at times, especially creationists (and they should not have any claim to a special immunity in this regards anyhow) but this is not why I linked to his channel. I linked to his channel because he covers a lot of information about science (biology, evolution, and cladistics [phylogenetic trees] in particular). He typically does this by showing claims creationists make, and then goes into an extraordinary level of detail explaining the evidence and the scientific knowledge that shows how these claims are wrong. It is for this reason I linked to his channel.

In your mind this may be what you consider bashing Christians, but to reiterate, there is no reason they should be immune to criticism. There is no reason anyone should be able to make inaccurate claims without having them rebutted, or without an explanation of how wrong their claims are (it is the same thing we all do here).

Regardless, consider it the flip side to your coin if you must take offense, you go science bashing and link to what we can easily interpret as "hit pieces" all the time, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You do not like his channel? don't watch. the link there was not for you specifically, it was an aside in case anyone else was interested - I already was 99.8% positive you would not give it the time of day, I did not provide it for you (but if you really, really want to take the time to watch here is his foundational falsehoods series )

‪AronRa's Channel‬‏ - YouTube

It is EXTREMELY informative, others will likely appreciate them and potentially learn a bit at the same time, you probably not.

edit: To whom it may concern, I am not sure if the playlist will actually work from that link, if not then just look at his playlists, the rest of the series is in there

 

[Verthaine]

Thats what scientists say

What are YOU saying?

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

That is not showing the progression of human and ape from one species

Could you please rephrase that so I can understand exactly what you are saying? Thank you.

 

[ptif219]

/facepalm

That is an incorrect interpretation of my words.

I'm saying that they haven't fully determined the specifics involved, but that the general picture has been in place for quite some time now.

That is in no way saying that they "do not know" - just that they do not know everything.


And even if I HAD said such a thing, why the hell would my opinion have any greater weight than yours?

How does it feel when people twist your words and take things out of context?

What this means is evolution has along way to go and it will be decades before many questions are answered

 

[ptif219]

What are YOU saying?

I am saying that is what scientists say What part don't you understand