- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 11,416
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Ancestor? It is a fossil that contradicts some theories so it means more research is needed according to the OP
No fossils are needed to show the progression. Using DNA just shows general information
You may be an ape I am not
Exactly what do you think that fossil is of?
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.
I didn't say no fossils.DNA but no proof of fossils. I say that is circumstantial at best
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.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.
I have no idea where you got that idea about marduc. Nothing in his post gives any indication of such that I can see.So you are more about condemning Christians than talking about evolution
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.
I must have missed that - what link?He gave a link that showed me it was a Christian hit piece by MSNBC.
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.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 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.
You may be an ape I am not
That article doesn't disprove evolution.
I see indications that the hilarity level in this thread may increase to epic.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.
You mean this?Post 1515
That's a link to a YouTube channel, not an "MSNBC hit piece."---------------------------------------------
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)
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.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.
No,but you are a primate.
Are you going to deny that also?
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.
If this theory is correct Apes evolved from humans which means evolution saying we came from apes is wrong
Hmm.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.
…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
Hmm.
Dunno, didn’t follow the link – perhaps he supplied an incorrect one, or some such?
Meh.
…
So let me get this straight.
You can’t have it both ways.
- 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.
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.
Quite obviously, they haven't decided yet.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.
/facepalmSo then we can not believe evolution because according to you they do not know.
Thats what scientists say
Could you please rephrase that so I can understand exactly what you are saying? Thank you.ptif219 said:That is not showing the progression of human and ape from one species
/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?
What are YOU saying?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?