• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The idea about human evolution that stumps creationists

ecofarm said:
The divergence is our species from other species of chimps. Not humans coming from chimps. It's not humans appearing from chimps. It's one chimp species diverging from others and that one species becoming humans. We weren't mixed, we were at the same evolutionary point.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean humans aren't apes. You've shifted the goalposts quite a bit.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
You don't look like your dad, do you?
Click to expand...

Of course I look like my dad. We both drag out gnarly knuckles along side ourselves as we walk unless we are carrying weapons, food, or a woman for later consumption. Always ready to pound the head of an enemy competitor for any of the above, or hunting rights, we both have knees, elbows and other joints for flexible climbing along with gripping of weapons and a good kick, while being among the fleetest animals on the planet so we can run like the hellcats are chasing us, as they often are. And there isn't much that moves that I can't eat, just like my dad. Even tho we share a common distaste for ugly women, knowing they mean less competition for their favors, we still both appreciates the sight of a pyt and a powerful breeding horse. This is a silly conversation, my manhood is much bigger than yours.
 
spud_meister said:
Doesn't mean humans aren't apes. You've shifted the goalposts quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Humans didn't come from apes. Of course we're apes, animals, mammals, all that.

Evolutionary divergence:

Let's say one species of shark has a mutation that's selected for and results in a new species, like sharks but more - a super shark.

Now, did super shark come from sharks? Did all the species of sharks get together and make super shark? No. Only one species of shark is responsible. Super shark diverged from sharks, but didn't really come from sharks. Now, super shark and sharks share a common ancestor. Probably only a few million years ago. Since then, sharks got nothing to do with super shark. Super apes and apes' most recent common ancestor is 60 mya. We no more came from chimps than super shark came from sharks. In the time of apes, our species became super apes. Apes didn't become super apes. It wasn't a blob falling off a larger mass. It was one species, a distinct and separate species for 40 million years, that diverged from the until then common evolutionary path.

We were chimps but we didn't come from chimps. Our species diverged from all of the other species of chimp, each its own species 40 mil years.
 
Last edited:
CEngelbrecht said:
What evidence would you accept?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/
Click to expand...

In light of this, animal studies using guinea pigs have shown that repeated exposure to cold water in the canal causes fibrous proliferation of the subcutaneous tissue in the deep meatus and stimulates the periosteum to produce a layered formation of periosteal bone.20 Furthermore, Harrison also used guinea pigs in similar experiments and described comparable histological evidence of new bone formation in the deep meatus.
Click to expand...

Hardly seems a necessary adaptation in a species domesticated from an alpine ancestor. In addition:

Kennedy noted that external ear canal exostoses were more common in communities where the water temperature is below 19°C.
Click to expand...

Which excludes East Africa and the Levant. I'd be interested in data on the prevalence of Surfers Ear in African populations.


What evidence do you accept for Homo sapiens being an exclusively terrestrial ape? Has that ever been any more than an historical assumption based on culture and not science?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598
Click to expand...

Both theories are interpreting evidence to suit a hypothesis, not crafting a hypothesis to suit the evidence. We don't have enough evidence to accept either theory.
 
spud_meister said:
Doesn't mean humans aren't apes. You've shifted the goalposts quite a bit.
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
Humans didn't come from apes. Of course we're apes, animals, mammals, all that.

Evolutionary divergence:

Let's say one species of shark has a mutation that's selected for and results in a new species, like sharks but more - a super shark.

Now, did super shark come from sharks? Did all the species of sharks get together and make super shark? No. Only one species of shark is responsible. Super shark diverged from sharks, but didn't really come from sharks. Now, super shark and sharks share a common ancestor. Probably only a few million years ago. Since then, sharks got nothing to do with super shark. Super apes and apes' most recent common ancestor is 60 mya. We no more came from chimps than super shark came from sharks. In the time of apes, our species became super apes. Apes didn't become super apes. It wasn't a blob falling off a larger mass. It was one species, a distinct and separate species for 40 million years, that diverged from the until then common evolutionary path.

We were chimps but we didn't come from chimps. Our species diverged from all of the other species of chimp, each its own species 40 mil years.
Click to expand...

I figure you get that. Now let's use the analogy to illustrate paleoanthropologists' objection.


We want to know what super shark was like when it was just a shark, x million years ago. Well, look at the modern nurse shark, it's a shark. So we know super shark, before it became super shark, was a bottom feeding docile shark.

That's what one is doing if one tries to predict human-to-be ape, 20 mya, activity/behavior based on a modern ape.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I figure you get that. Now let's use the analogy to illustrate paleoanthropologists' objection.


We want to know what super shark was like when it was just a shark, x million years ago. Well, look at the modern nurse shark, it's a shark. So we know super shark, before it became super shark, was a bottom feeding docile shark.

That's what one is doing if one tries to predict human-to-be ape, 20 mya, activity/behavior based on a modern ape.
Click to expand...

I'd typed out a small essay, and then realised it didn't make as much sense as I would've liked. Just finished an assignment for uni, so I'm off to bed and I'll get back to you tomorrow.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98
Semi-Aquatic Human Ancestors

This is the idea, that answers all questions about human evolution left over from Darwin and Wallace, leaving creationist cultists with nothing. And yet, by the will of the entire field of paleoanthropology, you're still not supposed to know about it. Because it was the wrong person that made the headway.

Click to expand...

  1. Let's be real here. Creationism has multiple material flaws all its own (even it's best foundational argument, the Cosmological Argument fails to prove the most basic premise on which Creationism relies -- see attachment in this post), well before one bothers to invoke a heterodox notion of human evolution. Creationists certainly have responses for all sorts of things, but they don't have a comprehensively sound theory of anything.
  2. FWIW:
One is free to believe all sorts of gobbledygook, but when one starts talking about matters of science, history, and what is or was existential, what one believes isn't worth a hill of beans. Only what one can soundly/cogently prove -- deductively and/or inductively -- matters.



Scientists and religious authors have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between the evidence for evolution and their belief in God. Authorities of diverse religious denominations have also issued statements affirming the compatibility between the tenets of their faith and the acceptance of biological evolution. (Sure, their doing so is rather "have one's cake and eat it too," but at least they aren't "Flat-Earthers"....It's a start.)

Science and religion concern different aspects of the human experience. Scientific explanations are based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world and rely exclusively on natural processes to account for natural phenomena. Scientific explanations are subject to empirical tests by means of observation and experimentation and are subject to the possibility of modification and rejection. Religious faith, in contrast, depends not on empirical tests and is not subject to the possibility of rejection based on empirical evidence. The significance and purpose of the world and human life, as well as issues concerning moral and religious values, are of great importance to many people, perhaps a majority of humans, but these are matters that transcend science.

If our nation is to continue to develop the talent necessary to advance scientific and medical research, we must ensure that high standards in science and science education are maintained and that efforts to introduce non-science into science classes do not succeed.
 

Attachments

  • Almost daily in United States one encounters stimuli that ask one to accept that God.doc
    45 KB · Views: 0
CEngelbrecht said:
Actually several. Elephants, rhinos, tapirs, suids and shrews have recent semiaquatic ancestry too.



Which begets no controversy within paleontology. So, elephants have a trunk because they were treading water 37 million years ago. As soon as we're talking about apes going into water, paleoanthropology's tripping.



We're talking human aquaticism within the last few million years, not back from when our ancestors were fish 290 million years ago. Plus we never left the water.

gettyimages-638927972_0.jpg
Click to expand...


It looks like you are just making up ****.
 
ecofarm said:
Now that we know why paleoanthropologists object to using apes as a proxy for human ancestry, everyone go tell your grandparents: "people didn't come from apes". We didn't. We came from lemurs, as did apes and monkeys. Thousands of primate species came from a species of lemur. Most didn't make it this far. Modern apes, monkeys and us all arrived separately. It didn't go monkeys -> apes -> people; that's stupid and I'm embarrassed for mankind for ever having thought so.
Click to expand...

WTF???

We have a recent common ancestry with Chimps and Bonobos. They are both apes. All of us are then closely related to Gorrillas.

So says anatony. So says the fossil record. So says DNA. So says behaviour.
 
ecofarm said:
My point being no ape was an ancestor of man, so we can't use apes to tell our ancestry. That's why paleo-anthropologists object to using apes; they're a proxy.

Your graphic (Pearson) is incorrect. Man and apes do not share a primate ancestor. Our nearest common ancestor was not a primate (or just barely, a pre prosimian).
Click to expand...

Don't you occaisionally claim to have a degree in eccology or environmental science or something???

Gibbons, Gorillas, Chimps, Humans and Bonobos are all Ape. Once there was only one species of Ape. All of us have decened from that single species. It had a common ancestor with Lemurs.
 
ecofarm said:
One cannot look to modern apes, or any of their ancestors (past lemur, when lemur was the most advanced species on Earth), for anthropology. No ape, except us, has anything to do with humans post lemur evolutionary split.
Click to expand...

DNA, and everything esle says you are wrong.
 
ecofarm said:
20 million years ago, we were chimps. Those chimps, our ancestors, shared a common ancestor with apes 60 million years ago. For 40 million years before and 20 million years after we were chimps, our lineage was and is separate from modern chimps.

We didn't come from chimps. We were chimps. They and us were last entwined before primates existed. When we get here, 60 million years later, we look like us and they like them.

At lemur (when it was the most advanced animal, 60 mya), we went one way and chimps went another. Separate genetic paths, parallel evolutionary course (obviously a different rate).

We do not come from apes. Apes do not represent our paleontology.

We weren't mixed with monkeys and became apes or mixed with apes and became people. We've been a separate genetic line since proto simian.
Click to expand...

Lemurs and the rest of the primates split a long time before 20 million years ago. That is why the only population of lemurs is on an isolated Island which had no humans on it untill very recently.

When you spout off about global warming you are just as confident and just as lacking in thinking.
 
ecofarm said:
I dunno how I can explain it any more.

1. Man is an ape.

2. Man was an ape, like they look today. Other apes existed when we were an ape. They became modern apes, we became human. Separate genetic lines since long before apes hit the scene.

3. Man and apes have evolved separately since lemurs were the highest order 60 mya.

Thus, we cannot use apes, which are not us and have never been us, as a proxy for our history.


We can't use other species as a proxy for our own paleontology. No other species is ours.
Click to expand...

You have explained it. You are wrong.

So says the evidence.

How bizzar???
 
spud_meister said:
Hardly seems a necessary adaptation in a species domesticated from an alpine ancestor. In addition:
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand. It's not an adaptation, it's a natural growth occuring with continuous exposure to water. It will not grow in guinea pigs' ears otherwise, and wouldn't have grown in these Homo erectus individuals, unless they were continuously in water for hours a week in their lifetime, on par with e.g. hippos.
 
ecofarm said:
I figure you get that. Now let's use the analogy to illustrate paleoanthropologists' objection.


We want to know what super shark was like when it was just a shark, x million years ago. Well, look at the modern nurse shark, it's a shark. So we know super shark, before it became super shark, was a bottom feeding docile shark.

That's what one is doing if one tries to predict human-to-be ape, 20 mya, activity/behavior based on a modern ape.
Click to expand...

"Hello, man."
"Axe handle."
 
I love when blue text internet idiots pretend they're educated. If anything they wrote was worth a pile of ****, they wouldn't need blue text to feel special. ****ing Truthers.
 
ecofarm said:
I love when blue text internet idiots pretend they're educated. If anything they wrote was worth a pile of ****, they wouldn't need blue text to feel special. ****ing Truthers.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't humans being an ape subject to ethological phenomenon explain everything we do?


"Concerning people, I said to myself, 'God is testing them, so that they will see that by themselves they are just animals.'"
- Ecclesiastes 3:18 (Yep, that's Darwinism in the Bible.)
 
Tim the plumber said:
Once there was only one species of Ape. All of us have decened from that single species. It had a common ancestor with Lemurs.
Click to expand...

:lamo

At least he's trying, kinda.

Monkeys, apes, great apes and we come from ~lemurs. Each separate genetic lines since ~lemur, 60 mya. From that species of quasi lemur proto simian came many species of ape, most of which are extinct. Some genetic lines from that proto simian exist today. We are one of them. Our genes never mixed with other monkeys or apes though we were monkeys then apes. We've been separate, genetically, 60 million years.

Evolutionary divergence is not one emerging from many; it's one going a different way. It's not emergence, it's divergence.


spud_meister said:
I'd typed out a small essay, and then realised it didn't make as much sense as I would've liked. Just finished an assignment for uni, so I'm off to bed and I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
:lamo

At least he's trying, kinda.

Monkeys, apes, great apes and we come from ~lemurs. Each separate genetic lines since ~lemur, 60 mya. From that species of quasi lemur proto simian came many species of ape, most of which are extinct. Some genetic lines from that proto simian exist today. We are one of them. Our genes never mixed with other monkeys or apes though we were monkeys then apes. We've been separate, genetically, 60 million years.

Evolutionary divergence is not one emerging from many; it's one going a different way. It's not emergence, it's divergence.
Click to expand...

Given you disagree with the accepted version of every biologist in the world can you back up your claim with any evidence other than your pompus word?

If you can show this you get the Nobel prize.

Go fo it!!
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given you disagree with the accepted version of every biologist in the world can you back up your claim with any evidence other than your pompus word?

If you can show this you get the Nobel prize.

Go fo it!!
Click to expand...

Rank idiocy after rank idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom