Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

talloulou said:

Scientific theory isn't a collection of facts. It's an interpretation of what a series of facts and repeatable observations might mean. Still a guess, but an educated one with merit validated by the facts and observations that seem to point to the theory.

Click to expand...

If you want to regard the fact that we orbit the sun an "interpretation" or a "guess" rather than an explanation so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it, that's on you.

A scientific theory is NOT a mere "guess", the word does not mean the same thing it does in everyday language. Scientific theories do not deal in what the facts "might mean" they are the best explanation for what they DO mean. More than that, you can use these theories to make countless predictions.

I have no interest in a semantics debate. What I quoted to you was the definition according to the National Academy of Sciences. I'll refer you to their position on this.

Lachean said:

What I quoted to you was the definition according to the National Academy of Sciences.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see where they define scientific theory simply as "a collection of facts." Facts are facts. Theory deals in interpreting facts and observations to explain the world around you. The interpretation part is what differentiates "theory" - even scientific theory from "fact."

I have no interest in a semantics debate. A scientific theory is NOT a mere "guess", the word does not mean the same thing it does in everyday language.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a mere guess. It's an interpretation born from facts and observations used to explain something about how the world works. But to say "theory is a collection of facts" is an overstatement of how sound and concrete a theory is.

From your sited document:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no
new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes
a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a
hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word
theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important
feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over
time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about
as yet unobserved phenomena.

Click to expand...

This is much closer to what I said, then what you said!

You said, theory is a collection of facts.

I said theory is an interpretation of facts and observations to explain something about how the world works. An educated guess.

Read the above again. If what you said was true they wouldn't use words like likely, or supported by.

The comprehensive explanation comes from the interpretation of facts and observations. It's taking what you know to be true- fact, and what you have repeatedly observed -observations and using and interpreting that information to go a step further in explaining something. Going further than what you can factual prove in absolute certainty with the known facts and observations used as supportive evidence for your claim.

You were absolutely wrong when you said "theory is a collection of facts. "

Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

From your sited document:

This is much closer to what I said, then what you said!

You said, theory is a collection of facts.

I said theory is an interpretation of facts and observations to explain something about how the world works. An educated guess.

Read the above again. If what you said was true they wouldn't use words like likely, or supported by.

The comprehensive explanation comes from the interpretation of facts and observations. It's taking what you know to be true- fact, and what you have repeatedly observed -observations and using and interpreting that information to go a step further in explaining something. Going further than what you can factual prove in absolute certainty with the known facts and observations used as supportive evidence for your claim.

You were absolutely wrong when you said "theory is a collection of facts. "

Click to expand...

I said a lot more that just "a collection of facts." Several times I reiterated that its also an explanation of said facts, but you chose not to respond to those definitions. When I said that, I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't defining "theory" in post #20, I was addressing the dichotomy of Arch Enemy's "as theory, not fact."

When I clearly defined what a theory was to you in posts #17 or #26 was I wrong in any way? Do you have a counter argument to the fact that a theory is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them"?

In no way is a theory "an educated guess," it is not a guess at all. That is what the word "theory" means in everyday language. Its an explanation, not just an interpretation of the facts.

In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses.

Click to expand...

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

You need to get the notion that theories are guesses or interpretations out of your mind, that and the idea that the NAS's position more closely represents yours than mine. What you did was ignore EVERYTHING I said to you, picked one thing I said to someone else out of context, and claim that I have failed to define "theory" adequately.

When in fact, you didn't reply to the proper definitions. Do yourself a favor, stop revealing your ignorance about scientific terminology and read the articles; Educate yourself. No one here is making "an overstatement of how sound and concrete a theory is."

Evolution is as true as gravity.

I have this really strange question.

If you are familiar with Donkeys, you may have observed that the male donkey is endowed with a remarkably long penis. Remarkably long. Say most of a meter.
This uber-long-penis enables him to mate with female donkeys despite the awkwardness of their mounting position.

When donkeys evolved from whatever, how did it just so happen that the male donkey came equipped with the uber-long penis he needed to impregnate the female donkey? Or did donkeys evolve several times, then die out repeated due to lack of an uber-tallywacker until finally one day donkeys appeared with the impressive equipment in question?

Also, if the first male donkey evolved in Kazakistan and the first female donkey evolved in Ireland, how did they hook up?

Perhaps they just mated with whatever parent species they evolved from that was close at hand, I suppose, like Donkeys and Horses will. Um, of course the offspring of a Donkey and Horse is called a Mule, and there is a reason that the word "Mule" is also a synonym for sterility.

BTW, I have this screenplay that was written by a million monkeys banging on a million typwriters, I wonder if you think its any good:

qjha tghn; hjfrgiadfnaonfgklrfqierigdefngdekfgioenrgefgkapdfmbdsnbmnafgnwfwruqeutojioj[4580458358979t3490gjfgdaf;klkdfhdepfhgptghpy5jt,jmhetguwjehbfyuwgbyifwberjogmneiegioehgioengkengwiongfwionrwowiretirre9589784353r4gjrfkgndsfknbdfhgtreitgertgiejhgipjre5igpe59t935gnripewgn

Click to expand...

The monkeys claim its a Broadway adaptation of a Shakespeare play, but I have my doubts.

My point in all this silliness is: while I don't claim to have a full understanding of all the details of how life came to be in its present form, I do believe that without the guiding hand of an omnisapient Creator, advanced life forms are improbable.

Some scientist seem to agree:

Barrow and Tipler [30] review the consensus among such biologists that the evolutionary path from primitive Cambrian chordates, e.g. Pikaia, to Homo sapiens was a highly improbable event. For example, the large brains of humans have marked adaptive disadvantages, requiring as they do an expensive metabolism, a long gestation period, and a childhood lasting more than 25% of the average total life span. Other improbable features of humans include:

Being the only extant bipedal land (non-avian) vertebrate. Combined with an unusual eye-hand coordination, this permits dextrous manipulations of the physical environment with the hands;
A vocal apparatus far more expressive than that of any other mammal, enabling speech. Speech makes it possible for humans to interact cooperatively, to share knowledge, and to acquire a culture;
The capability of formulating abstractions to a degree permitting the invention of mathematics, and the discovery of science and technology. Keep in mind how recently humans acquired anything like their current scientific and technological sophistication.

Click to expand...

G.

celticlord said:

1. Are we quite certain the process is evolution and not devolution?

Click to expand...

Devolution? Your either suggesting we used to be far more advanced life forms with no sense to keep some kind of record of how we used to be, or your suggesting apes are more intelligent then us.

On the contrary, there is an interesting point i see being made regularly; if we evolved from apes, how comes they are still around? My answer would be we didnt evolve from the things we know as "apes" today, but a type of species of apes, a seperate branch of ape that was similar but quiet not the same. Naturally, those same beings no longer exist in that form, but do so as us; humanoids.

So, my answer is; Yes, we did evolve, but not from apes, under the pretex the term "ape" is referenced to what we know as an ape today.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Lachean said:

Do you have a counter argument to the fact that a theory is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them"?

Click to expand...

Yeah I do have a counter-argument and that would be the number of theories that have been since rejected, revised, etc.

That's the importance of the "is likely" bit. No scientist would declare a theory to be fact. It is a guess, an interpretation, and explanation. It is a very good one, a very solid one, one with merit in order for it to be a scientific theory, but still at the end of the day you are dealing with a guess which is quite different from a fact.

For example the theory WAS that we evolved from tree dwelling apes. That has now been revised to we've evolved from a ground dwelling ape.

In no way is a theory "an educated guess," it is not a guess at all. That is what the word "theory" means in everyday language. Its an explanation, not just an interpretation of the facts.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. You take issue with the word guess. But anytime you "interpret" data to "construct" an explanation you are making a guess. Of course there are degrees of soundness in guessing and scientific theories are incredibly educated guesses but they are still more in line with "expectations," vs fact.
Which is why they may need to later be revised, tweaked, or tossed all together.

You need to get the notion that theories are guesses or interpretations out of your mind, that and the idea that the NAS's position more closely represents yours than mine. What you did was ignore EVERYTHING I said to you, picked one thing I said to someone else out of context, and claim that I have failed to define "theory" adequately.

Click to expand...

You need to get the notion that guess, interpretation, expectation, etc are bad words when it comes to scientific theory.

When you interpret data and then CONSTRUCT a theory based on the facts and observations you are absolutely making an educated guess and asserting an expectation to be put forth as an explanation.

When in fact, you didn't reply to the proper definitions. Do yourself a favor, stop revealing your ignorance about scientific terminology and read the articles; Educate yourself. No one here is making "an overstatement of how sound and concrete a theory is."

Evolution is as true as gravity.

Click to expand...

I realize the difference between a scientific theory and the term theory in general. However I accept that the difference is in the rigor and research that goes into developing a scientific theory and not that the "theory" is more factual when it's scientific.

Scientific theories are NOT facts, no scientist would call them facts, and while they likely may not change they also very well may change in the face of new evidence. They are not law.

talloulou said:

I remain completely open to the idea that we may have been genetically interfered with by aliens. I find it hard to readily buy into the idea that there was a natural progression/evolution from ape to human sans interference of some sort.

Click to expand...

Who made the aliens?

talloulou said:

You do realize you can believe in evolution while also questioning a common ancestor between apes and men?

Click to expand...

No, not really you can't.

Chimps, bonobos, humans, gorillas, all had a common ancestor. The line of descendants that ancestor threw off eventually threw off other species. This can be seen in the morphology of the above animals, and it can be seen in their DNA.

It's what evolution says has to have happened, and it's what the evidence shows. If someone can't accept the fact of species divergence, then they can't credibly claim to accept evolution, because they clearly don't understand it.

celticlord said:

1. Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes and humans share common ancestry.
2. Are we quite certain the process is evolution and not devolution?

Click to expand...

Kinda depends on the definition of the word "ape".

If by "ape" the person means only those species of animal alive today, then no, one can honestly say humans didn't evolve from apes.

I use the word "ape" to mean "something like an ape". Which is recursive, but who cares, since the people who think humans didn't evolve from ape-like ancestors aren't smart enough to catch the logical flaw anyway.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

No, not really you can't.

Chimps, bonobos, humans, gorillas, all had a common ancestor. The line of descendants that ancestor threw off eventually threw off other species. This can be seen in the morphology of the above animals, and it can be seen in their DNA.

It's what evolution says has to have happened, and it's what the evidence shows. If someone can't accept the fact of species divergence, then they can't credibly claim to accept evolution, because they clearly don't understand it.

Click to expand...

So you're saying I have to believe in an unknown common ancestor between chimps and humans or throw every ounce of evolution theory out the window.

Somehow I doubt that.

kaya'08 said:

If your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, i want to hear your opinions on Evolution. Did it occur? If so, are we the biologically enhanced version of Apes, changed over thousands of years of evolution? Or did it not happen at all. Does it have any scientific basis? Or did a being from a greater source place us here?

Whats your opinions?

Click to expand...

It is my personal theory that Earth had visitors long ago who genetically altered the apes to create humans.

talloulou said:

So you're saying I have to believe in an unknown common ancestor between chimps and humans or throw every ounce of evolution theory out the window.

Somehow I doubt that.

Click to expand...

Just because we don't have its fossils does not mean we do not have the genetic evidence. Read the article.

American said:

Who made the aliens?

Click to expand...

How the hell would I know what's at the top of the ladder when I'm only a couple rungs from the bottom?

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

Yeah I do have a counter-argument and that would be the number of theories that have been since rejected, revised, etc.

Click to expand...

What exactly is this an argument against? The fact that science changes its views when faced with new evidence, and discards old theories that are proven false is a credit to the validity of scientific theories.

talloulou said:

That's the importance of the "is likely" bit. No scientist would declare a theory to be fact. It is a guess, an interpretation, and explanation. It is a very good one, a very solid one, one with merit in order for it to be a scientific theory, but still at the end of the day you are dealing with a guess which is quite different from a fact.

For example the theory WAS that we evolved from tree dwelling apes. That has now been revised to we've evolved from a ground dwelling ape.

Yes it is. You take issue with the word guess. But anytime you "interpret" data to "construct" an explanation you are making a guess. Of course there are degrees of soundness in guessing and scientific theories are incredibly educated guesses but they are still more in line with "expectations," vs fact.
Which is why they may need to later be revised, tweaked, or tossed all together.

You need to get the notion that guess, interpretation, expectation, etc are bad words when it comes to scientific theory.

When you interpret data and then CONSTRUCT a theory based on the facts and observations you are absolutely making an educated guess and asserting an expectation to be put forth as an explanation.

I realize the difference between a scientific theory and the term theory in general. However I accept that the difference is in the rigor and research that goes into developing a scientific theory and not that the "theory" is more factual when it's scientific.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what I like, by definition a scientific theory is not a guess. See the link and quote I provided in post #29

It is you who has a problem with scientific terminology, science is NOT guesswork.

talloulou said:

Scientific theories are NOT facts, no scientist would call them facts, and while they likely may not change they also very well may change in the face of new evidence. They are not law.

Click to expand...

You do realize that laws and theories address different things don't you? And that NO amount of confirmation can ever make a theory a law right? Oh wait you don't.

Goshin said:

Also, if the first male donkey evolved in Kazakistan and the first female donkey evolved in Ireland, how did they hook up?

Click to expand...

Hee-Hawmony.com, of course.

vauge said:

Some scientist seem to agree:G.

Click to expand...

Those scientists are wrong.

That's easy.

The theory of evolution is consistent with the fossil record, the genetic record, and observations spanning human history.

To clear another thing up, a theory is a specific statement of explanation of a series of observed facts. To be a valid theory that statement has to explain the facts, provide a means of testing that explanation, and containing a means of demonstrating how that the theory may shown false.

Evolution is a fully formed and mature scientific theory that's passed all the tests and it forms one of the bedrocks of modern biology.

Creationism is not a theory. God, after all, has never been proven to exist.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Hee-Hawmony.com, of course.




Those scientists are wrong.

That's easy.

The theory of evolution is consistent with the fossil record, the genetic record, and observations spanning human history.

To clear another thing up, a theory is a specific statement of explanation of a series of observed facts. To be a valid theory that statement has to explain the facts, provide a means of testing that explanation, and containing a means of demonstrating how that the theory may shown false.

Evolution is a fully formed and mature scientific theory that's passed all the tests and it forms one of the bedrocks of modern biology.

Creationism is not a theory. God, after all, has never been proven to exist.

Click to expand...

Look I just get annoyed when scientific theory is peddled as fact. To say, "it's passed all the tests..." is just so dang ignorant. It hasn't "passed all the tests." We don't even know what the common ancestor was. We just found out in the past few years that whatever the hell it was it probably lived on the ground and not in the dang trees. Evolution in no way speaks to origin. The fossil record is incomplete,etc. It's passed all the tests, gimme a break.

It's sound. It's more sound and scientific than creationists or my alien theories. However it is not fact. It has yet to be disproven and we'd all do well to take that FWIW. But it is by no means the end all be all of biology and it most certainly is not above criticism.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Lachean said:

You do realize that laws and theories address different things don't you? And that NO amount of confirmation can ever make a theory a law right? Oh wait you don't.

Click to expand...

Not really other than a macro micro sort of thing where laws speak to specifics and theories are more all encompassing.

I just don't see what the political issue is with declaring that scientific theories are not guesses.

I understand wanting to separate scientific theory from crackpot theory but to say there isn't some guessing involved in interpretation of facts to construct a "theory" is total hogwash. You might have a high expectation, an educated expectation, that things do happen the way the theory has explained them but till it's a fact, it's not a fact - it's a guess.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

Not really other than a macro micro sort of thing where laws speak to specifics and theories are more all encompassing.

I just don't see what the political issue is with declaring that scientific theories are not guesses.

I understand wanting to separate scientific theory from crackpot theory but to say there isn't some guessing involved in interpretation of facts to construct a "theory" is total hogwash. You might have a high expectation, an educated expectation, that things do happen the way the theory has explained them but till it's a fact, it's not a fact - it's a guess.

Click to expand...

A crackpot theory is not a scientific theory at all, its a failed hypothesis. Scientific terminology is not the same as the layperson's everyday speech.

This is not a political issue, but a necessary term distinction. Insist that it is a guess all you want, you are simply wrong. There is guesswork involved in arriving at a theory, its @ the very beginning of the scientific method. Its called a HYPOTHESIS.

A valid, proven, supported theory like evolution or the fact that we orbit our sun are true. Fossil evidence is not the only evidence for common ancestry, in fact its the weakest when compared to the genetic evidence. Which we have, and its undeniable.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Lachean said:

A crackpot theory is not a scientific theory at all, its a failed hypothesis. Scientific terminology is not the same as the layperson's everyday speech.

This is not a political issue, but a necessary term distinction.

Click to expand...

Right. Which I get, completely. Which is why I said I understand wanting to separate the two.

However when you assert that a scientific theory is not a guess, that there was no guess work involved, in formulating the theory I don't get that. I think then you've gone too far. I can understand explaining why a scientific theory has more merit in comparison to a general theory but too often people speak of them as if they're factual.

How does scientific theory not involve guess work???

Let's say you see a pattern, a factual observable pattern, that is highly repetitive. You would be making a very educated assertion if you were to say that you knew what came next in the pattern right? But still, it would be a guess. It's unlikely the pattern would change and your facts and observations are supportive evidence of that but still when you assert what the next piece of the pattern is going to be before you know it to be true you are making a GUESS.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Read my post again. You're confusing a theory with a hypothesis, which can be regarded as a guess.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Lachean said:

A valid, proven, supported theory like evolution or the fact that we orbit our sun are true. Fossil evidence is not the only evidence for common ancestry, in fact its the weakest when compared to the genetic evidence. Which we have, and its undeniable.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I mean. Proven, undeniable? We have undeniable genetic evidence that humans most definitely did have a common ancestor as today's modern apes. Really? Undeniable evidence. I haven't read anything that even comes close to being undeniable. I haven't even read anything where a scientist has the audacity to declare the evidence is undeniable.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

This is exactly what I mean. Proven, undeniable? We have undeniable genetic evidence that humans most definitely did have a common ancestor as today's modern apes. Really? Undeniable evidence. I haven't read anything that even comes close to being undeniable. I haven't even read anything where a scientist has the audacity to declare the evidence is undeniable.

Click to expand...

Yes, the genetic evidence is regarded as proof. The comparative DNA between Humans and Chimps are a matter of fact. We can compare our DNA to every other species, and when we did guess what; The common sequences revealed common ancestry, as a great big family tree EXACTLY as evolution predicted.

Some evidence is undeniable, logic can be undeniable, some truths are axiomatic. The fact that 1+1=2 is undeniable, and theoretical physicists who deal in only math would also make such claims about evidence.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES

You can deny the definitions, or the facts of the matter; but that does not make said fact any less undeniable. Got any evidence that contradicts the genetic evidence for evolution? Do you have any REASON to deny common descent?

In short, do you believe in the validity of paternity tests?

"Undeniable" is in fact too strong of a word in this regard.

I find it convincing. But that doesn't mean there's no possibility of finding out something else which contradicts it.

Harshaw said:

"Undeniable" is in fact too strong of a word in this regard.

I find it convincing. But that doesn't mean there's no possibility of finding out something else which contradicts it.

Click to expand...

Fine, how about "overwhelming evidence" with more and more pouring in EVERY day and NOTHING contradicting it.

I am not saying there is no possibility that evidence will come in that contradicts it, I'm saying its as unlikely as finding out that we don't actually orbit the sun. Hows that?