The scientific case for a common ancestor of humans and monkeys (1 Viewer)

[Numbers404]

In the United States, there has been a significant push from policiticians to either teach creationism along with evolution or to remove evolution from public education altogether. Many supporters of this movement claim that the evidence for evolution is lacking.

This article will look at the scientific evidence for a claim that creationists often have the hardest time accepting. The claim that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor.

For a more comprehensive source of the evidence for common descent in general, and the source of much of this article, please visit "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I. Fossil evidence

There is a widespread misconception that there is a single "missing link" that, if found, would connect humans with apes. In fact, many fossils have been found that are intermediate in morphology (including the morphology of jaws, skulls, legs, and hips) between humans and apes. Creationists often contradict each other or even change their positions on which fossils are "completely human" and which fossils are "completely ape" because some fossils are so strongly intermediate in their morphology.

I will look at brain sizes in particular. As you can see from the following chart, the brain sizes of fossil hominids run the spectrum between those of Australopithecines (which creationists consider to be apes) and modern humans. The fossils intermediate in morphology between Australopithecines and modern humans are also intermediate in chronology.

Name - Brain size in cubic centimeters - Age

Australopithecines - 375 to 550 cc - 2,500,000-4,200,000 years old

Homo habilis - 500 to 800 cc - 1,500,000-2,400,000 years old

Homo georgicus - 600 to 680 cc - 1,800,000 years old

Homo erectus - 750 to 1225 cc - 300,000-1,800,000 years old

Homo heidelbergensis (aka Homo sapiens archaic) - 1200 cc average - 800,000-200,000 years old

Homo sapiens sapiens - 1400 cc average - 0-200,000 years old

( Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html )

[ Note: Creationists often disregard radiometric dating techniques, but the evidence for their accuracy is very compelling. For more information you can go to http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html ]

Many creationists have drawn the line between "completely human" and "completely ape" between Homo habilis and Homo erectus, with disagreement over some Homo habilis fossils. However, the Homo georgicus fossils found in 2002 are intermediate in morphology between Homo habilis and Homo erectus and it is still uncertain whether most creationists will classify them as apes or humans.

In this image you can visually see the evolutionary progression of hominids from our ape-like ancestors to modern humans. Skulls B-N proceed in choronological order, with skull B being the oldest and skull N being the youngest. Skull A is that of a modern chimpanzee for comparison. You can see why creationists have such a hard determining whether these fossils are "completely ape" or "completely human."

For more information about fossil hominids, you can go to http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm or
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

II. Genetic evidence

A. Pseudogenes

A pseudogene is a defective segment of DNA that is very similar to or identical to a gene but either cannot be transcribed or cannot be translated. Because pseudogenes are largely non-functional and their sequences are complex, it is highly unlikely that two or more species would have identical psuedogenes if they are unrelated.

An example of a pseudogene is the L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for L-ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) synthesis, found incapable of functioning in humans, apes, and monkeys. This pseudogene is also found in guinea pigs, but the mutations that rendered it functionless are very different from the mutations that caused the pseudogenes in humans, apes, and monkeys to become functionless ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10572964&dopt=Abstract ).

Another example is the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene. Humans and chimpanzees, who are our closest relatives, share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1550121&dopt=Abstract ).

III. Anatomical Vestiges

A vestige is "a degenerate anatomical structure or organ that remains from one more fully developed and functional in an earlier phylogenetic form of the individual" (Dictionary of Bioscience, 1997). An example of an obvious vestige is the eye that remains in blind species. This indicates that the ancestors of these species were able to see and this ability has since been lost. In the same way, vestiges found in humans provide evidence of our own evolutionary history.

A. Arrectores pilorum

Arrectores pilorum are tiny muscles under the skin that cause hair to become erect. Our fur-covered ancestors would have used these in the same way that modern primates use them: to make themselves appear larger and more frightening. Modern humans do not have enough body hair for this to be effective.

B. The Appendix

The appendix is a vestige of the end of the large cecum of our herbivorous ancestors. The large cecum found in many herbivorous animals contains specialized bacteria that secrete cellulase, an enzyme that digest cellulose (which is a common plant molecule). However, the cecum of hominoid apes (including humans) has lost this function and the appendix and the cecum remain as a rudiment of our evolutionary history.

For a comprehensive look at the vestigial nature of the appendix, you can go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

B. Endogenous retroviruses

Endogenous retroviruses convert their RNA into DNA and insert this DNA into their host's genome. This retrogene can be inherited if it happens to a sperm or an egg cell. Because this process is rare and somewhat random, two or more species having genomes with the same retrogenes in the same location strongly suggests that the two species have a common ancestor. There are many known instances of retrogene insertions that are common between humans and monkeys (and several that are common only among humans and chimpanzees) ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10655035&dopt=Abstract ).

IV. The Human tail

A normal human embryo develops a tail after about 4 to 5 weeks of age, as you can see:

This tail is composed of complex tissues, including developing vertebrae, notochord, and mesenchyme. Normally, this tail is removed through a process of apoptosis (programmed cell death). However, in rare cases, it is retained and humans are born with tails. This tail "contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin" and "can move and contract." ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6373560 )

Here are a few pictures of a baby born with a functioning tail:

In biology, this reappearance of a characteristic found in an evolutionary ancestor is known as an atavism. Another extraordinary case of atavisms is living whales found with legs.

The muscle which enables these people to contract their tails is the extensor cocygis. This muscle has no practical purpose in normal humans and it is not always present. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject?id=115

If humans and monkeys were unrelated, we certainly wouldn't expect any humans to be born with functioning tails. Nor would we expect to find human embryos developing complex tails only to later destroy them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
---
...

 

[Kelzie]

Damn that's cool. I want a tail!

 

[jallman]

Way to go...that was a very informative post with a lot of good points. And very well laid out I might add. I hope you are ready for the gobbledygook that is about to follow though.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

In the United States, there has been a significant push from policiticians to either teach creationism along with evolution or to remove evolution from public education altogether. Many supporters of this movement claim that the evidence for evolution is lacking.

This article will look at the scientific evidence for a claim that creationists often have the hardest time accepting. The claim that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor.

For a more comprehensive source of the evidence for common descent in general, and the source of much of this article, please visit "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent." [b]I. Fossil evidence[/b] There.../www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm or
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

II. Genetic evidence

A. Pseudogenes

A pseudogene is a defective segment of DNA that is very similar to or identical to a gene but either cannot be transcribed or cannot be translated. Because pseudogenes are largely non-functional and their sequences are complex, it is highly unlikely that two or more species would have identical psuedogenes if they are unrelated.

An example of a pseudogene is the L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for L-ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) synthesis, found incapable of functioning in humans, apes, and monkeys. This pseudogene is also found in guinea pigs, but the mutations that rendered it functionless are very different from the mutations that caused the pseudogenes in humans, apes, and monkeys to become functionless ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10572964&dopt=Abstract ).

Another example is the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene. Humans and chimpanzees, who are our closest relatives, share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1550121&dopt=Abstract ).

III. Anatomical Vestiges

A vestige is "a degenerate anatomical structure or organ that remains from one more fully developed and functional in an earlier phylogenetic form of the individual" (Dictionary of Bioscience, 1997). An example of an obvious vestige is the eye that remains in blind species. This indicates that the ancestors of these species were able to see and this ability has since been lost. In the same way, vestiges found in humans provide evidence of our own evolutionary history.

A. Arrectores pilorum

Arrectores pilorum are tiny muscles under the skin that cause hair to become erect. Our fur-covered ancestors would have used these in the same way that modern primates use them: to make themselves appear larger and more frightening. Modern humans do not have enough body hair for this to be effective.

B. The Appendix

The appendix is a vestige of the end of the large cecum of our herbivorous ancestors. The large cecum found in many herbivorous animals contains specialized bacteria that secrete cellulase, an enzyme that digest cellulose (which is a common plant molecule). However, the cecum of hominoid apes (including humans) has lost this function and the appendix and the cecum remain as a rudiment of our evolutionary history.

For a comprehensive look at the vestigial nature of the appendix, you can go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

B. Endogenous retroviruses

Endogenous retroviruses convert their RNA into DNA and insert this DNA into their host's genome. This retrogene can be inherited if it happens to a sperm or an egg cell. Because this process is rare and somewhat random, two or more species having genomes with the same retrogenes in the same location strongly suggests that the two species have a common ancestor. There are many known instances of retrogene insertions that are common between humans and monkeys (and several that are common only among humans and chimpanzees) ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10655035&dopt=Abstract ).

IV. The Human tail

A normal human embryo develops a tail after about 4 to 5 weeks of age, as you can see:

This tail is composed of complex tissues, including developing vertebrae, notochord, and mesenchyme. Normally, this tail is removed through a process of apoptosis (programmed cell death). However, in rare cases, it is retained and humans are born with tails. This tail "contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin" and "can move and contract." ( Here are a few pictures of a baby ... humans? Hmmmm think about that for a second.

 

[cnredd]

Way to go...that was a very informative post with a lot of good points. And very well laid out I might add. I hope you are ready for the gobbledygook that is about to follow though.

Simply prophetic...

 

[nkgupta80]

There's also a scientific principle called Achems Razor which states: "All things being equal the simplest explaination tends to be the right one."

Key word "tends"

If you went blindly by this rule, we could have just stuck to the fact the world is flat. Its a simple explanation. We should have stuck to the simple explanataion that the sun is a godly chariot that moves across the sky. Much more simple than a hugeass ball of hydrogen fusing into helium.

defying all laws of genetics and scientific principles

Thats the stupidest statement. Evolution is the only theory come up so far that helps bind genetic and scientific principles. If there is a better theory, scientists would give it more credibility. Are you saying that creationism doesn't defy the wealth of scientific and genetic research?

.the idea that land dwelling animals ultimatley evolved from sea dwelling creatures. Animals do not "evolve" into a seperate species all together..they only "evolve" into seperate genus' within their own species. So an ape could not be a descendant of a fish.

Its like seeing a tree grow out of a tiny seedling. They look completely different in the end but it happens, accept evolution is a much much slower process. its funny how peopel can accept the miracle of birth, and the miracle our universe is, but they cannot accept evolution as a miraculous process.

 

[Dezaad]

Here is some strong genetic evidence I came across about a month ago. The information is in the link, but I think a summary is a good idea.

Sometimes one of the mutations that happens to chromosomes is that they combine or split. Each species has its number of chromosomes. For instance, Gorillas have 24, Chimps: 24, Humans: 23.

It was thought that perhaps a two chromosomes became one in at least one instance during the evolution of mankind from our common ancestor with other apes. Evidence for this hypothesis came when a single human chromosome was discovered to have, along its middle, identical mapping to the ends of two of the ape chromosomes.

For a more eloquent, in depth explanation click the image:

 

[jallman]

There's also a scientific principle called Achems Razor which states: "All things being equal the simplest explaination tends to be the right one."

Key word "tends"

If you went blindly by this rule, we could have just stuck to the fact the world is flat. Its a simple explanation. We should have stuck to the simple explanataion that the sun is a godly chariot that moves across the sky. Much more simple than a hugeass ball of hydrogen fusing into helium.



Thats the stupidest statement. Evolution is the only theory come up so far that helps bind genetic and scientific principles. If there is a better theory, scientists would give it more credibility. Are you saying that creationism doesn't defy the wealth of scientific and genetic research?



Its like seeing a tree grow out of a tiny seedling. They look completely different in the end but it happens, accept evolution is a much much slower process. its funny how peopel can accept the miracle of birth, and the miracle our universe is, but they cannot accept evolution as a miraculous process.

:applaud

How beautifully put. Simple, yet poignant...and elegant in its candor toward the topic. I will be interested to see how the other side comes back from that.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

There's also a scientific principle called Achems Razor which states: "All things being equal the simplest explaination tends to be the right one."

Key word "tends"

If you went blindly by this rule, we could have just stuck to the fact the world is flat. Its a simple explanation. We should have stuck to the simple explanataion that the sun is a godly chariot that moves across the sky. Much more simple than a hugeass ball of hydrogen fusing into helium.



Thats the stupidest statement. Evolution is the only theory come up so far that helps bind genetic and scientific principles. If there is a better theory, scientists would give it more credibility. Are you saying that creationism doesn't defy the wealth of scientific and genetic research?



Its like seeing a tree grow out of a tiny seedling. They look completely different in the end but it happens, accept evolution is a much much slower process. its funny how peopel can accept the miracle of birth, and the miracle our universe is, but they cannot accept evolution as a miraculous process.

1. Interesting of you to say that. Achems razor is a widely used and accepted scientific principle until someone uses it to disprove a scientific theory..then it becomes invalid. Strange isn't it? Your refutation is incorrect though given observations of the sun. It's a big round object in the sky which rises and falls so whats more likely? It rises and falls on its own or somehow someone attached a little chariot to it and and lugs it around the earth. The reason why creationism is the simplest explaination is because it only requires 1 variable..a divine being while evolution requires an incalculable number of variables making it the most complex explaination.

2.Hmmm I believe evolution is the only instance inwhich scentists use an unprovable theory to substantiate scientific and genetic claims even though they are contradictory. It is a proven fact that mutations are NOT pased on through offspring and the idea of having the exact same mutation in two beings is an astromical improbability. Even if a human did manage to pop out of another species or genus let alone millions it wouldnt' matter because that mutation would die with that being. Perhaps creationism does defy scienctific thought however the first job of a scientist is to discover the TRUTH whatever that may be not to rule something out simply because it is less desirable and/or would turn the scientific world on it's head.

3. This only proves my point. A tree grows from a seedling but they are the same species it's simply a process of metamorphosis not a result of an evolution. A seedling can't be produced by a rock..only by a tree. And the seedling of an oak tree can only be produced by an oak tree not a maple tree. Species do not evolve into other species..they simply adapt becomming different genus' within the species.

 

[jallman]

1. Interesting of you to say that. Achems razor is a widely used and accepted scientific principle until someone uses it to disprove a scientific theory..then it becomes invalid. Strange isn't it? Your refutation is incorrect though given observations of the sun. It's a big round object in the sky which rises and falls so whats more likely? It rises and falls on its own or somehow someone attached a little chariot to it and and lugs it around the earth. The reason why creationism is the simplest explaination is because it only requires 1 variable..a divine being while evolution requires an incalculable number of variables making it the most complex explaination.

2.Hmmm I believe evolution is the only instance inwhich scentists use an unprovable theory to substantiate scientific and genetic claims even though they are contradictory. It is a proven fact that mutations are NOT pased on through offspring and the idea of having the exact same mutation in two beings is an astromical improbability. Even if a human did manage to pop out of another species or genus let alone millions it wouldnt' matter because that mutation would die with that being. Perhaps creationism does defy scienctific thought however the first job of a scientist is to discover the TRUTH whatever that may be not to rule something out simply because it is less desirable and/or would turn the scientific world on it's head.

3. This only proves my point. A tree grows from a seedling but they are the same species it's simply a process of metamorphosis not a result of an evolution. A seedling can't be produced by a rock..only by a tree. And the seedling of an oak tree can only be produced by an oak tree not a maple tree. Species do not evolve into other species..they simply adapt becomming different genus' within the species.

And that was the sound of a point going way over someone's head.

 

[nkgupta80]

Interesting of you to say that. Achems razor is a widely used and accepted scientific principle until someone uses it to disprove a scientific theory..then it becomes invalid. Strange isn't it? Your refutation is incorrect though given observations of the sun. It's a big round object in the sky which rises and falls so whats more likely? It rises and falls on its own or somehow someone attached a little chariot to it and and lugs it around the earth. The reason why creationism is the simplest explaination is because it only requires 1 variable..a divine being while evolution requires an incalculable number of variables making it the most complex explaination.

oh come on, a simple magical chariot flying through the sky isn't as simple as huge ball of hydrogen using nuclear processes to convert to helium, and because of its gravity keeps the planets in orbit. You know, for thousands of years we believed that. Even when heliocentricity came out, people still argued it giving the same arguments as you: Until we can go up into space and see so, it is an unproven theory. Hell there are still geocentrics living today....The point is, creationism does the same thing. It says this is a really miraculous thing we see, a variety of life. How is it possible that this could have been created. It must be God, who used his magical finger and poofed us all into existence. Of course this explanation's much simpler, much like the magical chariot.

2.Hmmm I believe evolution is the only instance inwhich scentists use an unprovable theory to substantiate scientific and genetic claims even though they are contradictory. It is a proven fact that mutations are NOT pased on through offspring and the idea of having the exact same mutation in two beings is an astromical improbability. Even if a human did manage to pop out of another species or genus let alone millions it wouldnt' matter because that mutation would die with that being. Perhaps creationism does defy scienctific thought however the first job of a scientist is to discover the TRUTH whatever that may be not to rule something out simply because it is less desirable and/or would turn the scientific world on it's head.

of course mutations can be passed down...You see it all the time in quick-reproducing life forms. I've witnessed it in laboratories. I've done some of the processes myself on fruit flies. Despite what you say about it being impossible to pass the mutation on, you see it in coakroaches, insects, bacteria, all the quick reproducing animals. Of course its harder to see in larger life-forms. However, when you look at the millioins of different species, you can easily draw similarities between each of them.

Evolution has earned credibility since it has helped in many medical/biological discoveries. Without an understanding of it, you really can't understand why something in your research occurs, and thus draw accurate conclusions.

3. This only proves my point. A tree grows from a seedling but they are the same species it's simply a process of metamorphosis not a result of an evolution. A seedling can't be produced by a rock..only by a tree. And the seedling of an oak tree can only be produced by an oak tree not a maple tree. Species do not evolve into other species..they simply adapt becomming different genus' within the species.

I don't even think you got my point. The point of that paragraph was to show that a complex thing such as reproduction and growth can be considered miraculous, but evolution cant. Come on, look at ourselves. By you're conclusions you should be wondering how our bodies are even working as they are. It goes against all probability that atoms would come together and work in such a complex system. But it happens...
Evolution is the same thign. It gives us a simple way of showing how species change into another. Its a growth process much like our bodies brought on by our surrounding environmental systems.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

And that was the sound of a point going way over someone's head.

:lol: I didn't finish it. Read what I said in 3 into account and then read this. Yes a seedling and its tree look different but they are infact the same thing, the same genus and spieces. There is no evolution involved. Birth is not a miracle, it's the result of human reproduction. The creation of the universe is a miracle because it is the result of devine power. But by your standards evolution cannot be a miracle because you don't believe in a devine being thus there are no miracles because miracles require devine intervention. See the logic now?

P.S. Do you have a response to my other arguments?

 

[nkgupta80]

How beautifully put. Simple, yet poignant...and elegant in its candor toward the topic. I will be interested to see how the other side comes back from that.

and yet they find some outlandish way to come back at it.

 

[nkgupta80]

hmm one more thing, there is no singular for species right? I've been tryin to spell it in singular for the last ten minutes...

 

[Kelzie]

hmm one more thing, there is no singular for species right? I've been tryin to spell it in singular for the last ten minutes...

Nope. You're not crazy.:lol:

 

[jallman]

:lol: I didn't finish it. Read what I said in 3 into account and then read this. Yes a seedling and its tree look different but they are infact the same thing, the same genus and spieces. There is no evolution involved. Birth is not a miracle, it's the result of human reproduction. The creation of the universe is a miracle because it is the result of devine power. But by your standards evolution cannot be a miracle because you don't believe in a devine being thus there are no miracles because miracles require devine intervention. See the logic now?

P.S. Do you have a response to my other arguments?

Yes, I have a response. GOBBLEDYGOOK, pure gobbledygook.

P.S. Have you ever thought that maybe one could see evolution as God's brilliant means of accomplishing his Divine goals. Thats very miraculous to me.

And by the way...he never said the tree evolved from seed, merely that the growth of the mighty oak from the tiny seedling (I took some poetic liberty in my quoting) is miraculous.

This would be where reading comprehension would have done you well.

 

[nkgupta80]

I took some poetic liberty in my quoting

Makes the post more interesting too read

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

oh come on, a simple magical chariot flying through the sky isn't as simple as huge ball of hydrogen using nuclear processes to convert to helium, and because of its gravity keeps the planets in orbit. You know, for thousands of years we believed that. Even when heliocentricity came out, people still argued it giving the same arguments as you: Until we can go up into space and see so, it is an unproven theory. Hell there are still geocentrics living today....The point is, creationism does the same thing. It says this is a really miraculous thing we see, a variety of life. How is it possible that this could have been created. It must be God, who used his magical finger and poofed us all into existence. Of course this explanation's much simpler, much like the magical chariot.



of course mutations can be passed down...You see it all the time in quick-reproducing life forms. I've witnessed it in laboratories. I've done some of the processes myself on fruit flies. Despite what you say about it being impossible to pass the mutation on, you see it in coakroaches, insects, bacteria, all the quick reproducing animals. Of course its harder to see in larger life-forms. However, when you look at the millioins of different species, you can easily draw similarities between each of them.

Evolution has earned credibility since it has helped in many medical/biological discoveries. Without an understanding of it, you really can't understand why something in your research occurs, and thus draw accurate conclusions.



I don't even think you got my point. The point of that paragraph was to show that a complex thing such as reproduction and growth can be considered miraculous, but evolution cant. Come on, look at ourselves. By you're conclusions you should be wondering how our bodies are even working as they are. It goes against all probability that atoms would come together and work in such a complex system. But it happens...
Evolution is the same thign. It gives us a simple way of showing how species change into another. Its a growth process much like our bodies brought on by our surrounding environmental systems.

1. Your point is WRONG :lol: You have to take into account the VISIBLE attributes..not the composition. Therefore the sun moving by itself is simpler because you only have to take into account the vissible variables of the sun while you have to take into the visible variables of the chariot, god, and sun with the other. The reason god is simpler in creation is because he is the only variable required to produce seperate beings but in evolution you have to take into account every species which came before it, the earth, the sun, etc.. because without those things evolution would not be possible.

2. THE EXACT SAME mutation CAN"T be passed down from generation to gerneration. Similarities possibly but not the exact same mutation. Your example is invalid anyway because it involves human interevetion..not an occurance of the natural world. Besides, things don't evolve into seperate species they adapt into another variation of itself/a genus. A flu virus can adapt but it's still a flu virus..not a polo virus a flu virus.

3. I don't believe reproduction or growth to be miraculous because they are part of our metamorphosis and please note that we remain the same species. I don't believe evolution to be miraculous either because a miraculous evolution is contradictory because it requires the evolution to involve devine intervention. Given your conclusion I could ask you the same question. HOW and WHY could such complex beings be ultimatley derived from a patch of pond scum and bacteria and single-celled orgainisms? After all even if life mysteriously appeared without divine influence the only things which would be on an early earth would be those three things. Please don't forget the HOW and WHY.

 

[jallman]

3. I don't believe reproduction or growth to be miraculous because they are part of our metamorphosis and please note that we remain the same species. I don't believe evolution to be miraculous either because a miraculous evolution is contradictory because it requires the evolution to involve devine intervention. Given your conclusion I could ask you the same question. HOW and WHY could such complex beings be ultimatley derived from a patch of pond scum and bacteria and single-celled orgainisms? After all even if life mysteriously appeared without divine influence the only things which would be on an early earth would be those three things. Please don't forget the HOW and WHY.

And you find it more acceptable that man was formed from dust and that woman was formed from man's rib? The how of evolution is explained scientifically...there are a fossil record, morphological, and genetic evidence of how. The why is also simple...Its God's will.

 

[nkgupta80]

THE EXACT SAME mutation CAN"T be passed down from generation to gerneration. Similarities possibly but not the exact same mutation. Your example is invalid anyway because it involves human interevetion..not an occurance of the natural world. Besides, things don't evolve into seperate species they adapt into another variation of itself/a genus. A flu virus can adapt but it's still a flu virus..not a polo virus a flu virus.

dude i really don't wanna go into this, it'll take me too long to explain... take a book on DNA, or genetics and read it. Maybe you'll understand what a mutation is, and how its TRAITS can be easily passed on. Evolution is what whole medical research facilities are basing some of their conclusions on...

I don't believe reproduction or growth to be miraculous because they are part of our metamorphosis and please note that we remain the same species. I don't believe evolution to be miraculous either because a miraculous evolution is contradictory because it requires the evolution to involve devine intervention. Given your conclusion I could ask you the same question. HOW and WHY could such complex beings be ultimatley derived from a patch of pond scum and bacteria and single-celled orgainisms? After all even if life mysteriously appeared without divine influence the only things which would be on an early earth would be those three things. Please don't forget the HOW and WHY.

WHY is the only problem with evolution. Rather I should correct myself and say that WHY is the only problem with origin of life. But thats the same problem with creationism as well. HOW is what evolution shows.

1. Your point is WRONG You have to take into account the VISIBLE attributes..not the composition. Therefore the sun moving by itself is simpler because you only have to take into account the vissible variables of the sun while you have to take into the visible variables of the chariot, god, and sun with the other. The reason god is simpler in creation is because he is the only variable required to produce seperate beings but in evolution you have to take into account every species which came before it, the earth, the sun, etc.. because without those things evolution would not be possible.

And there you have it, your "cause and effect" point that you were arguing in the other thread. Evolution is pointing to a long chain of dependencies, whereas creationism doesn't... Does that mean it simply cannot be true? The explanation doesn't always have to be simple. I don't know why you're taking Achem's razor to heart. Its not a freakin law. Its merely a suggestion, something to ponder.

 

[nkgupta80]

And you find it more acceptable that man was formed from dust and that woman was formed from man's rib? The how of evolution is explained scientifically...there are a fossil record, morphological, and genetic evidence of how. The why is also simple...Its God's will.

good way of putting it... and for those who don't believe in god, theories are still being formulated as to why. And these are the hotly contested ones in the science community, not the existence of evolution.... There is one where scientists believe that life is an inevitability due to nature's laws.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

dude i really don't wanna go into this, it'll take me too long to explain... take a book on DNA, or genetics and read it. Maybe you'll understand what a mutation is, and how its TRAITS can be easily passed on. Evolution is what whole medical research facilities are basing some of their conclusions on...


WHY is the only problem with evolution. Rather I should correct myself and say that WHY is the only problem with origin of life. But thats the same problem with creationism as well. HOW is what evolution shows.



And there you have it, your "cause and effect" point that you were arguing in the other thread. Evolution is pointing to a long chain of dependencies, whereas creationism doesn't... Does that mean it simply cannot be true? The explanation doesn't always have to be simple. I don't know why you're taking Achem's razor to heart. Its not a freakin law. Its merely a suggestion, something to ponder.

1. I have read books on genetics and I know a geneticist..he agress with me. And it's still not sinking in. I'll say it once more. THE EXACT SAME traits ARE NOT passed through generations..they may be SIMILAR but they will NEVER be EXACTLY the SAME. I'll even give you an example.. after Chernoble some pigeons developed mutations.. one grew an extra leg etc.. but NONE of the mutations were found to be EXACTLY the SAME in the species. One of the primary rules in science is not to declare any conclusions derived from an unstable and unproven theory.
2. You totally missed it..HOW did evolution occur..what was it's cause/catalyst if you argue mutation then I'll ask what caused such dramatic mutations and WHY would life need to evolve.
3. That makes no sense..you cannot apply that to the first cause argument...it has nothing to do with it. The first argument cause simply states that there must be a being independant of cause which began the cause and effect chain.
It means that your argument is unlikely. Evolutionists ignore the law that something cannot come from nothing and that organic material isn't derived from non-organic material. They fail to provide enough evidence..period. All they have are a few skulls with fabricated chunks attached to the missing pieces so they can try to prove their theory. When I look at those skulls I see a dozen other possiblities. 1 imparticular..the one with the blue. Perhaps that is simply a cavity in the skull that was always naturally there..perhaps it's the skull of another animal. Just because it looks humanoid doesn't mean it is. Evolution is astromically improbable period. The different things must have been placed on earth independantly, plants, animals, bacteria etc because as I said nothing would survive early earth but bacteria and bacteria doesn't become an animal or a plant. If live derives from evolution then why isn't it found anywhere else in the solar system?? Bacteria forms in very hot and very cold conditions yet there is none..we're the only living planet in the solar system.

Now lets stop debating about this cause neither of us are going to budge. Agree to disagree.

 

[Numbers404]

It is a proven fact that mutations are NOT pased on through offspring and the idea of having the exact same mutation in two beings is an astromical improbability.

If a mutation occurs in a germline cell, that mutation will be passed on to any resulting offspring. By what reasoning do you assume that this is not the case?

An example of a clear case of a mutation being passed on is the Devon Rex breed of cats.

It is know that one cat from a litter of non-Devon Rex cats was found to look remarkably different from the rest. A genetic mutation had caused the cat to have crinkled fur and crinkled whiskers as well as larger eyes and ears. These characters have since been passed down from generation to generation.

You can read more about Devon Rex here: http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/devon.html

 

[nkgupta80]

1. I have read books on genetics and I know a geneticist..he agress with me. And it's still not sinking in. I'll say it once more. THE EXACT SAME traits ARE NOT passed through generations..they may be SIMILAR but they will NEVER be EXACTLY the SAME. I'll even give you an example.. after Chernoble some pigeons developed mutations.. one grew an extra leg etc.. but NONE of the mutations were found to be EXACTLY the SAME in the species. One of the primary rules in science is not to declare any conclusions derived from an unstable and unproven theory.

I think he prob thought you were talking about mutations of the whole body. Mutations in sex cells are what get passed down. That is irrefutable, I know many geneticists and biologists as well, including a nobel prize winner. Technically, sexual reproduction is mutation. You're mixing genetic material to create a new being. This is the carrying process. A drastic mutation occurs in the cell. This can show a dominant trait. If it is dominant, and natural selection forces allow it, the trait is easily passed down through sexual reproduction. This can lead to big changes over time. You see it in coakroaches when they are grow immune to certain drugs. You see it in new strains of bacterial diseases or fungii. There was a kind of banana that went extinct a couple decades ago because of a new strain of fungus. Did god suddenly make this new fungus?

 

[nkgupta80]

numbers404 brought up a good point. Selective breeding is just like natural selection, except humans are playing that role instead of nature. How do you think we create different breeds of animals? This process can eventually leads to a whole new species.