• 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!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
Unrecognizable in what regard? How much the genome of a slow-reproducing organism can change in 2,000 years?


Geneto-Duke
 
Unrecognizable in what regard? How much the genome of a slow-reproducing organism can change in 2,000 years?


Geneto-Duke

Unrecognizable physically with large genetic variations from our current human forms. In other words we wont look the same at all.
 
Unrecognizable physically with large genetic variations from our current human forms. In other words we wont look the same at all.


I'd like to see that article... From whence do said scientists postulate that variations will stem? Natural mutation alone? I wouldn't think so.


Duke
 
But wouldn't interbreeding make us all look the same eventually?

Unrecognisable physically? Meaning we'll grow tails maybe? A third leg? Oh wait, how about wings?
 
I'd like to see that article... From whence do said scientists postulate that variations will stem? Natural mutation alone? I wouldn't think so.


Duke

ScienceMode said:
Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike. Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different.

“We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah.

Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

– “We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. “The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”

ScienceMode Humans Evolving Faster, Different 2000 Years Later, Scientists Say - Science News - From Science Mode.com
 
But wouldn't interbreeding make us all look the same eventually?

Unrecognisable physically? Meaning we'll grow tails maybe? A third leg? Oh wait, how about wings?

Evolution has been pushing us away from tails incase you didnt know. We still have the remnants of it at the end of our spine. Growing wings or whatever is unlikely because that would mean we would have to evolve to produce the genetics that will enable us to grow such things which is highly unlikely to happen unless we cross bread with birds.
 
To demonstrate that your use of outdated quotes intended to disqualify the theory of evolution by natural selection merely demonstrates your own deep ignorance of the history of science and thus disqualifies your own adamant position against the theory.

OK. Then how does your post dismisses/argues to any of my statements? Let’s say your information is true. How does the ‘’outdated quote’’ argues/disagrees with your information? How does your information ever make the quote wrong or missing anything?
 
But see, that's why God gave us the fossil record, so we could look back through time and take a gander at the laws of His great universe!:2razz:


Duke

But wouldn't
George,

There is no fossils that would even give anybody idea of ape turning into a human and ape. All fossils (and humans are supposed too be the ‘’last product’’ of evolution) show that there always have been humans and apes. There are a lot of fossils of dinosaurs but no fossils of the later species that would give such an idea.


wiki:

’All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago while a recent discovery suggests that another species, Homo floresiensis, may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago.

A minority of zoologists consider that the two species of chimpanzees , and maybe the gorillas should also be included in the genus based on genetic similarities. Most scientists argue that chimpanzees and gorillas have too many anatomical differences between themselves and humans to be part of Homo. Given the large number of morphological similarities exhibited, Homo is closely related to several extinct hominin genera, most notably Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus and Australopithecus. As of 2007, there is no universally accepted recognition of which taxa Homo radiated from.
’’



Let me bring to your attention to the term” “radiated’’. You have 45 sec to find a word that can be more vague than “radiated’’.

You have read it – have you checked what does ’taxa‘‘ mean?

Note in evolution it is always maybe, may, suggests - it is a fact or it is maybe a fact?
1.” Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, ‘’
Neanderthal DNA illuminates split with humans - life - 11 October 2006 - New Scientist
“The first comparison of human and Neanderthal DNA shows that …Neanderthals may have had more DNA in common with chimps than with modern humans.

“Were there Neanderthals in our lineage? All of the genetics seems to be going in the direction that there weren’t,” says Richard Potts, head of the Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program in Washington DC, US.RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SKULL FROM FOOT PRINTS:

Australopithecus afarensis : ‘’Laetoli is a site in Tanzania, dated to the Plio-Pleistocene and famous for its hominid footprints, preserved in volcanic ash (Site G).
A line of hominid fossil footprints, discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey, Richard Hay, Tim White and their team, is preserved in powdery volcanic ash from an eruption of the 20 km distant Sadiman Volcano.’’
[do you understand - no fossils, none, just footprints (justone)]
But: Footprints to Fill: Scientific American

‘’For their part, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton note that a new reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot(prints)built exclusively from A. afarensis remains is needed to confirm these preliminary findings. As for identifying the real culprit, if A. afarensis did not make the prints, that would put the poorly known A. anamensis in the running. But just as likely, speculates Harcourt-Smith, an as yet undiscovered species left the prints. That is to say, consider the world's oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery.’’

Is evolution a fact or a mystery? A mystery is a fact in evolution!




QUITE A RECONSTRUCTION!:
Now we all way down to famous Lucy:
These are a few bones but together by imagination: File:Lucy Mexico.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the next result of the wild imagination: File:Lucy Skeleton.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One has to have quite an imagination to reconstruct such a beauty … out of nothing… such an intellectual forehead out of piece of jar bone if to imagine that the piece is a piece of jar bone …


‘’Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths”
Yoel Rak*, , Avishag Ginzburg*, and Eli Geffen

’Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans… The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee’’

Do you know what is Mandibular ramus… the best available ‘’evidence’’ for reconstructions?

A jawbone reconstruction serves as a template for footprint reconstruction… Woodoo science…

In order to reconstruct Lucy a real scientist would demand to have a number of intact Lucies as a template, otherwise even if you had a something besides Mandibular ramus, you would be reconstructing towards a man if your template is a man, or towards a wolf if your template is a wolf. You can make no reconstruction that wouldn’t be a bias guess if you don’t have a template/reference. Even Lucy can understand that, but not an evolutionist. And then the jar still matches gorilla’s jar, according to the Israeli scientists, it LOOKS (=morphology)to them like that.


Evolution breaks its Mandibular ramus at its own child Australopithecus.


There are no fossils, but just wild uncontrolled imagination of evolutionists.

Remember if an evolutionist states something it is either false or makes no sense.
 
OK. Then how does your post dismisses/argues to any of my statements? Let’s say your information is true. How does the ‘’outdated quote’’ argues/disagrees with your information? How does your information ever make the quote wrong or missing anything?

Just read the quote I took from your post. Then read my response to it.

That'll answer all your questions.
 
Just read the quote I took from your post. Then read my response to it.

That'll answer all your questions.

The quote is from the text of the Theory of Relativity.

It is not from what I or anybody says about the Theory of Relativity.

It is a part of Einstein’s proof in the text of the Theory of Relativity itself.

I hardly can make out meaning of your post especially in the relation with the quote.

I am asking politely, please, clarify.


Please, explain what is your disagreement with Einstein?

Where, how does Einstein go wrong in his Theory of Relativity?
 
The quote is from the text of the Theory of Relativity.

It is not from what I or anybody says about the Theory of Relativity.

It is a part of Einstein’s proof in the text of the Theory of Relativity itself.

I hardly can make out meaning of your post especially in the relation with the quote.

I am asking politely, please, clarify.


Please, explain what is your disagreement with Einstein?

Where, how does Einstein go wrong in his Theory of Relativity?


Have you read my response yet?

Obviously not, because that's self-explanatory.

Flatly, it's was silly of Al to write that nothing much had come of Relativity such a short time after he'd published it, and certainly when a large part of that time was consumed by ....umm....everyone fighting WWI. As I pointed out....well, I pointed it out, you can read it for yourself, I don't have to re-write it.

Oh, and you clearly wish to change my words into your words.

Quote my post were I said Relativity was wrong, or retract your statement.

The Bible is wrong, that's plain enough. No one can expect to be taken seriously if they claim it isn't.

Relativity has survived every test tossed it's way.
 
Last edited:
Have you read my response yet?

Obviously not, because that's self-explanatory.

I asked politely for clarification

Flatly, it's was silly of Al to write that nothing much had come of Relativity such a short time after he'd published it,

IT IS one of publications of the TOR authored by Einstein.

and certainly when a large part of that time was consumed by ....umm....everyone fighting WWI.

I beg you pardon?
As I pointed out....well, I pointed it out, you can read it for yourself, I don't have to re-write it.
I asked politely for clarification
Oh, and you clearly wish to change my words into your words.

Quote my post were I said Relativity was wrong, or retract your statement.
You quoted TOR and nothing else and commented that the quoted statement of the TOR was “’outdated”, - from your post it is clearly seen that you view this part of the proof of the TOR is an incorrect statement.

What is incorrect about it?

The Bible is wrong, that's plain enough. No one can expect to be taken seriously if they claim it isn't.

Bible? I beg you pardon?

Relativity has survived every test tossed it's way.
Who is arguing? How is the quote arguing? I hope you are not trying to say that I am arguing while quoting the TOR as a proof of my statements, are you?
 
Scarecrow, what justone is trying to say is that what you quoted and commented on was not justone's statement, it was Einstein's.

"up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead".

The above comes from Einstein himself.

The complete quote is:

We have another instance of far-reaching agreement between the deductions from two theories in Newtonian mechanics on the one hand, and the general theory of relativity on the other. This agreement goes so far, that up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead, and this despite the profound difference in the fundamental assumptions of the two theories. In what follows, we shall again consider these important deductions, and we shall also discuss the empirical evidence appertaining to them which has hitherto been obtained.

In other words, you are disagreeing with Einstein.

Here is a full text of Appendix III from Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Appendix 3. The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory where the quote being discussed can be found.



P.S. To justone: I forgot that you had asked for a source for my Einstein quotes from way back and just remembered while I was posting this. They come from Einstein's Eulogy to Isaac Newton in the Smithsonian Annual Report for 1927.
 
To me, its still a theory of evolution, there are far too many unanswered questions..Questions that no man can answer...
Its more logical that we may well have evolved from a common species rather than from apes.
Respectful people do not laugh at those with a difference of opinion....but then maybe this disrespect proves that they are still closer to apes instead of man...
 
Respectful people do not laugh at those with a difference of opinion....but then maybe this disrespect proves that they are still closer to apes instead of man...

Guilty as charged!

monkey-typing.jpg


:rofl
 
Wow! Snazzy computer!

What I don't get is that there are people who look at apes and at humans and think we're somehow not related. Man and ape share common ancestor, evolution is known to have happened. Measured fact. Exact dynamics aren't quite well known at this point, but that can be worked out with time and data. In the end, I'm looking at an evolutionary scientist saying "this is the data, we infer the following, evolution has and is occurring, etc" and usually some religious nut claiming that evolution never happened, can't happen. Magic blinked us into existence and that's the end all be all of it. Scientists are a bunch of morons and liars trying to push a theory which has no proof, blah blah blah. If asked which one makes the most sense, and which one is probably right; I'd have to go the scientist route. Data, logic, and reason will win out over emotionalized retorts about alchemy and magic.
 
Scarecrow, what justone is trying to say is that what you quoted and commented on was not justone's statement, it was Einstein's.

Yes, I understand the function of quotes.

Einie was wrong, and his theory was too complex and too young for him to be making such a comment at that time.

I understood what I was writing, and what it was in response to.

In other words, you are disagreeing with Einstein.

I know.

Cool, isn't it?

BTW, he was wrong, as I pointed out. I do have the advantage of ninety years of research, you know.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand the function of quotes.

Einie was wrong, and his theory was too complex and too young for him to be making such a comment at that time.

I understood what I was writing, and what it was in response to.

Look at the quote again:

...up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead...

See the bolded portion? Einstein clearly added "up to the present" for a reason.

Also see the underlined portion, The two examples you have given would also fall into the category of "only a few". The quote itself states that such things are not only possible, but that they currently existed at the time that the quote was made.

Clearly, this all proves unequivocally that the following comment:

I understood what I was writing, and what it was in response to.

Is patently false.

You clearly could not have understood what you were responding to. Had you actually understood it, there is no conceivable way that you would have responded as you did. In order to respond as you did -by giving a few examples of cases where relativity deduced what pre-relativity physics could not- you must have assumed that the quote meant that there were no cases where something was deduced through relativity that pre-relativity physics could not also lead to.

Obviously, the quote said "only a few" which is, as we all know, more than "none". This means giving a few examples of that which was already acknowledged to exist inside the quote itself does not, could not, and would not, refute that quote.


BTW, he was wrong, as I pointed out. I do have the advantage of ninety years of research, you know.

As I have pointed out, Einstein was not wrong. He was indeed correct. when you look at the entirety of the quote, you have actually pointed out nothing except that which Einstein had already pointed out. That a few things exist that relativity can deduce which pre-relativity physics could not.

If you'd like to actually prove Einstein wrong, you would need to show that it is not only a "few" AND that they existed at teh time that he penned the quote in question.

Have fun with that one.
 
See the bolded portion? Einstein clearly added "up to the present" for a reason.

You had help figuring that out, didn't you?

And yet you want to rail against me for pointing out the obvious, that yes indeedy, his theory was too young to be making that comment, and yes, indeedy, justoneman was in error by posting that quote and merely demonstrating his own ignorance thereby.


How much more effort are you going to expend substantiating the point I already made with assured competence, hmmmm?
 
Wow! What an ENORMOUS amount of factually incorrect nonsense. And every bit of it without citations.

It takes only a second to type a bit of nonsense like "oil pressure is impossible", and it takes patient education to refute something like that.

So let's just return to reality.

The argument isn't really "Creationism" versus "Evolution". Evolution happens - creatures evolve. We evolved from earlier forms. The evidence is there, the mechanisms are well understood. The evolutionary model makes successful predictions all the time. The Theory of Evolution is a solid as atomic theory, tectonic plate theory, and the germ theory of disease.

Many creationists believe in natural evolution - they believe God set off the Big Bang and let it run from there. Others believe the Book of Genesis is 100% factual history and life on Earth started in 4004 BC, in October. So there is no consistent "creationism" viewpoint.

So the argument is really "evolution acceptance" versus "evolution denial", where evolution denial is no different than any other form of reality denial. Evolution denial = Holocaust denial = lunar landing denial = round Earth denial.

The FACT is that life evolves. The THEORY of Evolution is the model that describes how.

Evolution is a solid theory, simple at the core and complex in the details. It employs well-understood mechanisms:

Replication + Variation + Selection = Evolution

It has evidence to support each component, it has mountains of evidence found in the fossil record, in vestigial traits in living creatures, in morphology, in genetics and in molecular biology. The facts of evolution are supported by and mesh with other sciences like geology, paleontology, physics, other aspects of biology, cosmology, etc. And it is supported by thousands of critical scientists trying to prove each other wrong, or trying to add their own insights to the theory. For evolution to NOT be true, many other sciences must have also made major mistakes.

Evolution-deniers claim Evolution is "only a theory" because they say "theory" = "guess" or "hunch". But in science the word "theory" means a complex model to explain many facts. The theory that life evolved from earlier life is as well supported as the "theories" that the continents drift, that germs cause disease and that stuff is made of atoms. You can bet you life on all of those "theories".

Evolution-deniers claim there is no evidence for Evolution. This is a lie. Here are a long list of strong evidence for evolution, and even a list of how you'd disprove evolution, and why the evidence supports evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Evolution-deniers claim scientists are "abandoning" evolution because some scientists signed a statement saying they are skeptical that Darwinian evolution accounts for all the variation in the species. But (1) this doesn't mean those scientists believe it takes divine or non-natural intervention for evolution to happen, and (2) the list is a fraud:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM"]YouTube - List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?[/ame]

Not only that, but there are nearly 12,000 Christian CLERGY who've signed a statement supporting evolution and rejecting the teaching of creationism as science. Science isn't about voting, but even if it was, evolution still wins.
Butler University - Error Page

Evolution-deniers claim the fossil record does not support evolution, and that there are no intermediate species or transitional fossils. This is an outright lie.

Professional evolution-deniers like Kent Hovind or Harun Yahya claim that a "transitional fossil" is some unworkable mutant like half-crocodile/half-duck or half-starfish/half-flounder. They paint these ridiculous pictures of absurd creatures, then say "see! Evolution is false because these don't exist!".

Of course they're just being dishonest because evolution doesn't work that way (and they know it!). Evolution works by tiny changes in populations over a LONG time, so that species slowly morph into different forms. When you grow from an infant to an adult, your left leg doesn't grow to full size first, then your right arm, then your head. Similary, evolution doesn't put a crocodile's head on a duck's body.

Here is a devout Christian explaining about all sorts of intermediate species and how the fossil record absolutely supports evolution: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY"]YouTube - Ken Miller on Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design[/ame]

Here is an example of how scientists used evolutionary theory to predict a particular undiscovered species should exist, when it should have existed, and where to dig NOW to find a fossil of it. They went to that spot and found five examples. What successful predictions has creationism ever made?
Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

Here is a fantastic video explaining many many transitional species:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU...A95&index=8"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]

Evolution-deniers, unable to refute the actual theory of evolution, then say "evolution doesn't explain the creation of the first life or the creation of the universe." That is also dishonest, because the theory of evolution doesn't ATTEMPT to explain those. Evolution has nothing to do with those. It's like saying chemistry is all false because it doesn't explain where the elements came from.

The birth of the universe is cosmology, not evolution. And non-life to life is abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is about how different species formed.

Evolution-deniers claim we've never SEEN evolution - that's a lie, because we have:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/...amp;oref=slogin
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80417112433.htm
Scientists watch Darwin?s finches evolve - LiveScience- msnbc.com

This example even ADDED information (through gene duplication), something many evolution-deniers say is impossible:
Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment -- Brown et al. 15 (8): 931 -- Molecular Biology and Evolution

Finally, bad scientific theories get killed by the scientific process: The Four Humours, Polywater, M-rays, cold fusion, etc. Evolution has only become stronger and better understood over the past 150 years. Again, you can bet your life on it.

Natural events have natural causes. For thousands of years, people have used god(s) to explain what they didn't yet have natural explanations for:

The Sun - was a God, now explained by science
The Moon - was a God, now understood by science
The stars - were God, now science
The tides - were attributed to God, now science
The seasons - attributed to God, now science
Earthquakes - were God, now science
Lightning - was God, now science
Rain & drought - was God, now science
Health & disease - was God, now science
Schizophrenia - was demonic possession, now science
Origin of species - was God, now science (evolution)
Identity & personality - was the soul, now neurscience

And as natural explanations and science progress, there are always people uncomfortable with the implications to their religious beliefs at the time. There are STILL people who believe in a flat Earth, or believe the Sun orbits the Earth.


So only by rejecting knowledge and denying reality (or by lying) can you deny that life evolved and continues to evolve.



Now, if you want to argue for creation, just tell us how it works. I've offered the Theory of Evolution that has an understandable mechanism, is falsifiable, that fits the facts of 150 years of hard science, is observable, that makes reliable predictions, and that smart people could win Nobel Prizes for disproving (but haven't, because it's true).

So what's the "theory of creation"? How did it happen? Did all the current species pop into existence all at once? Where did the mass come from? Why are so many of them gone? Why are there no trilobites alive now? Why are there flightless birds living on tiny islands? And finally and most important, if there is NOT a natural explanation for the diversity of life, if some divine creator poofed it all into being, WHY WHY WHY did he/she/it go to such great lengths to make all this evidence proving life evolved naturally? Was it just some big cosmic joke?
 
You had help figuring that out, didn't you?


LOL. I noticed you STILL ignored the "only a few" portion. I'd probably do that, too, if admitting I missed it meant I had to admit my error.


Actually, I wouldn't. I have the nuts in my satchel to admit my errors. ;)
 
Hey, to the 29% of the people who voted on this poll and chose the third option, if you think we evolved, but not from apes, what do you think we evolved from?


Duke
 
Hey, to the 29% of the people who voted on this poll and chose the third option, if you think we evolved, but not from apes, what do you think we evolved from?

Though I voted option 1, after further review I realize there's a sound basis for option 3... both apes and homo sapiens evolved from a common primate ancestor, which technically was not an ape under our current classification.

;)
 
Back
Top Bottom