EVOLUTION: what about this

[wildleafblower]

**Howard Hughes Hughes Medical Institute: **

Question:
James, Boston, MA, USA
In the human body what is the most compelling evidence that we are ancestors of apes or other lower primates?
**
Answer**
Kristie Mather
HHMI predoctoral fellow,
University of California at Berkeley

First, I’d like to clarify a common misconception regarding human evolution. Humans are not the ancestors of living nonhuman primates, nor are any living nonhuman primates the ancestors of humans. Instead, humans and nonhuman primates share a common ancestor. That is, humans, apes, and other primates are branches on a primate tree that evolved from a common ancestor that existed at the convergence of the branches.

That said, the most compelling evidence that all primates (including humans) share a common ancestor comes from a variety of sources: molecular studies, comparative morphology (the study of the physical similarities and differences between different taxa), and paleoanthropology.

Molecular studies (which are essentially comparative studies at the genetic level) have demonstrated the great similarity between human DNA and that of other primates. For example, 98.5% of the DNA sequence of humans and chimpanzees is identical.

When comparative morphologists study the physical characteristics of mammals, they find that primates (including humans) share a unique suite of characteristics. Some of these include grasping hands (opposable thumbs), locomotion that’s dominated by the hind limbs, increased reliance on vision (the eyes are shifted to the front of the head for stereoscopic vision), decreased reliance on smell (the snout is smaller), larger brains, longer life spans, and lower reproductive output. All of these are evidence that all primates share a common ancestor.

Finally, when paleoanthropologists study the fossils of our ancestors, they find that they resemble the fossils of the ancestors of other primates and that the similarity increases as you go further back in time I recommend Introduction to Physical Anthropology , by Robert Jurmain and Harry Nelson (1994, West Publishing Company), especially the chapters on primates (“Living Primates,” “Fundamentals of Primate Behavior,” and “Primate Models for Human Evolution and Primate Evolution”).
hhmi.org/askascientist/answers/in_the_human_body_what_is_the_most_compelling_evid ence_that_we_are_ancestors_of_apes_or_other_lower. Html
http://www.hhmi.org/askascientist/answers/in_the_human_body_what_is_the_most_compelling_evid ence_that_we_are_ancestors_of_apes_or_other_lower. Html

I’m not an ape nor were my mom or dad.

 

[reggieM]

Wrong. I don’t think you understand my posts. Quite how to make things clearer, I have no idea ​

Perhaps I can help you …

Proposed: “I think you claimed that God created something.”

You answer here: Yes/No

Proposed: “You now claim that God has no significance in the study of creation.”

You choose here: Yes/No

quoting you …

antisupernaturalism comes from those who want God to be a scientifically significant entity

Proposed: “You do not believe that God has any scientific significance”.

You choose here: Yes/No

Question: “What did God create?”

You choose: Something/Nothing/Other

Proposed: “Apparently, in your study of literature you believe that the nature, history, motivations and intentions of the author are entirely insignificant to the work - right?”

Answer; Yes/No

This would be a start in trying to explain yourself further.
The logic will either work or it won’t.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not an ape nor were my mom or dad.

That is good to hear. I would not consider you such even if you claimed that you were an ape.

 

[edwest2]

To wildleafblower,

I am less and less inclined to believe scientists regarding this subject. The power struggle between religion and science has increased. The problem is this: the deposit of faith held by the Catholic Church is inviolate. But an atheist-scientist dictatorship is strongly desired.

The genetic information you quoted is wrong:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-are-the-99-chimpanzee-scratch-that/

It appears to have been purposely manipulated to sell a lie - atheism, disguised as science.

If you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then realize that individuals like hecd2 want to turn many away from the truth of Scripture.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Brady01]

Evolution Is Wrong

 

[rachah]

The scientific community still can not find evidence to link human species to other primates.

They are all trying to find the “missing link”.

Good luck and may God be with you.

 

[PEPCIS]

**Howard Hughes Hughes Medical Institute: **

Question:
James, Boston, MA, USA
In the human body what is the most compelling evidence that we are ancestors of apes or other lower primates?
**
Answer**
Kristie Mather
HHMI predoctoral fellow,
University of California at Berkeley

First, I’d like to clarify a common misconception regarding human evolution. Humans are not the ancestors of living nonhuman primates, nor are any living nonhuman primates the ancestors of humans. Instead, humans and nonhuman primates share a common ancestor.

Of course, this being said in contradistinction to the strawman argument that creationists supposedly believe that present-day humans are the immediate ancestors of some current hominid species.

That is, humans, apes, and other primates are branches on a primate tree that evolved from a common ancestor that existed at the convergence of the branches.

In other words, “We BELIEVE that humans arose from an ape-like hominid.”

That said, the most compelling evidence that all primates (including humans) share a common ancestor comes from a variety of sources: molecular studies, comparative morphology (the study of the physical similarities and differences between different taxa), and paleoanthropology.

This needs to be broken down individually. On the surface, everything sounds so…well…“scientific.” After all, who can argue with “molecular studies” and “comparative morphology” and [GASP!!!] “paleoanthropology”?

Molecular studies (which are essentially comparative studies at the genetic level) have demonstrated the great similarity between human DNA and that of other primates. For example, 98.5% of the DNA sequence of humans and chimpanzees is identical.

This is the most-oft quoted lie of the evolutionist, because this is not “evidence”, but simply an observation that must be interpreted according to a priori foundations.

For example, noting a similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA does not, and CAN NOT, prove or evidence evolution, because EVOLUTION IS ASSUMED TO HAVE OCCURRED. It is circular reasoning at its finest.

One could just are readily observe that DNA and other similarities, such as “comparative morphology” are nothing more than evidence that there was a common creation, where the Creator used the same body plan over and over again.

When comparative morphologists study the physical characteristics of mammals, they find that primates (including humans) share a unique suite of characteristics…All of these are evidence that all primates share a common ancestor.

Again, this is circular reasoning. Not having ever witnessed macroevolution, the evolutionist simply looks to observations which support his BELIEF that evolution occurred.

To establish evolution as a viable theory requires that the evolutionist (the BELIEVER in evolution) have witnessed it to have occurred, and then to bring evidences to bear that support his original observation.

 

[rossum]

The scientific community still can not find evidence to link human species to other primates.

Your sources are telling you falsehoods. There is much evidence linking us to other primates, to the great apes in particular. For example Human Chromosome 2 and also the shared error in our Vitamin-C systhesis system (see L-gulonolactone oxidase).

They are all trying to find the “missing link”.

Of course. When we have found another link is is a “found link” because it is not missing any more.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

Your sources are telling you falsehoods. There is much evidence linking us to other primates, to the great apes in particular. For example Human Chromosome 2 and also the shared error in our Vitamin-C systhesis system (see L-gulonolactone oxidase).

Of course. When we have found another link is is a “found link” because it is not missing any more.

rossum

This is similar to the mistake of the evolutionist I replied to in my last reply. It’s circular reasoning that works like this:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true
Evidence of evolution is Chromosome 2
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

Yet, evolution has never been observed, therefore, Chromosome 2 is merely an observation that fits the BELIEF of those who propose the hypothesis that evolution is true.

 

[buffalo]

That would be a conjuring trick, not faith. ​

Ever heard - Faith can move mountains?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Science can’t afford emotion. The Barbarian refers to Darwin’s last sentence in The Origin of Species. I think that is appropriate, and a beautiful concept of the natural world, but science can’t move according to such emotionalism. Not that it’s wrong, it just doesn’t answer any questions. Science is all about answering questions in an objective way. Facts are just what they are and there is beauty in those facts. But the facts, not the beauty, is what is most important within science. Has to do with heuristic value.

That is its essential weakness. It cannot move outside its limited confines.

Right. Science can tell you how the variety of living things came to be, but it cannot explain why there is a universe in which such things can evolve. I can’t express how pleased I am that you have come to understand this.

It cannot rise to the fullness of creation.

That’s not what it’s for. There is another way to do that, if one will just use it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is similar to the mistake of the evolutionist I replied to in my last reply. It’s circular reasoning that works like this:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true
Evidence of evolution is Chromosome 2
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

Nope. Science starts with a problem and goes from there:

Problem:
Humans and apes have different numbers of chromosomes, but the evidence otherwise shows that they are closely related.

Hypothesis:
Humans must have a chromosome fusion, because they have one less pair.

Evidence:
The human #2 chromosome looks precisely like two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres and a former centromere.

There is no other way to explain such an anomaly, if not a chromosome fusion.

Conclusion:
The disparity in chromosome number is due to a chromosome fusion.

Notice that it’s not a logical syllogism, but an inference based on evidence. Inductive reasoning. That’s how science works. And as you have seen, it works very well, indeed.

 

[Magnus467]

This is similar to the mistake of the evolutionist I replied to in my last reply. It’s circular reasoning that works like this:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true
Evidence of evolution is Chromosome 2
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

Yet, evolution has never been observed, therefore, Chromosome 2 is merely an observation that fits the BELIEF of those who propose the hypothesis that evolution is true.

I agree completely. Just because someone can find some finches that are similar does not mean they evolved. Change over time?-Possibly. Change from species to another due to genetic mutations-Very Unlikely. Genetics of today is not as linear as once thought. Also the cell is far more complex than once thought in Darwin’s time. People try to jam and warp observations to fit evolution.

I recommend watching Expelled with Ben Stein!

 

[The_Barbarian]

To establish evolution as a viable theory requires that the evolutionist (the BELIEVER in evolution) have witnessed it to have occurred, and then to bring evidences to bear that support his original observation.

If so, sciences like astronomy, forensics, fire investigation, geology, etc. are all fakes. Anyone who tells you that we can only know what we have personally observed, is hilariously wrong.

 

[buffalo]

Science can’t afford emotion. The Barbarian refers to Darwin’s last sentence in The Origin of Species. I think that is appropriate, and a beautiful concept of the natural world, but science can’t move according to such emotionalism. Not that it’s wrong, it just doesn’t answer any questions. Science is all about answering questions in an objective way. Facts are just what they are and there is beauty in those facts. But the facts, not the beauty, is what is most important within science. Has to do with heuristic value.

Right. Science can tell you how the variety of living things came to be, but it cannot explain why there is a universe in which such things can evolve. I can’t express how pleased I am that you have come to understand this.

That’s not what it’s for. There is another way to do that, if one will just use it.

Great! We are now on the same page.

 

[rachah]

Your sources are telling you falsehoods. There is much evidence linking us to other primates, to the great apes in particular. For example Human Chromosome 2 and also the shared error in our Vitamin-C systhesis system (see L-gulonolactone oxidase).

Of course. When we have found another link is is a “found link” because it is not missing any more.

rossum

But this is exactly what I mean. The educational system in US taught me that the theory of evolution was an undenialble fact. No other theories or contrary opions were discussed or studied.

The more I study on my own the more I learn about the truth without the liberal or biased slant.

When Darwin studied the animals of the Gallopogus island, he noticed that animals evolve. Like some people do not have wisdom teeth–we simply do not need them to aggressively grind food anymore. But to jump from species to species–I don’t think so. No evidence and no link.

We are all almost 99percent DNA connected. HMMM…maybe we all come from THE ONE.:yup:

 

[rossum]

This is similar to the mistake of the evolutionist I replied to in my last reply. It’s circular reasoning that works like this:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true
Evidence of evolution is Chromosome 2
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

Yet, evolution has never been observed, therefore, Chromosome 2 is merely an observation that fits the BELIEF of those who propose the hypothesis that evolution is true.

Shall we try that again.

• Hypothesis: Evolution is true:
• Prediction: we will find evidence that human and chimpanzee genomes are derived from a common ancestor.
• Evidence:
  1. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two different chimpanzee chromosomes.
  2. Identical errors in the L-gulonolactone oxidase pseudogene.
  3. Identical amino acid sequences for Cytochrome-C enzyme out of 2.3 x 10[sup]93[/sup] possible sequences.
  4. etc.
  5. Conclusion: Evolution is supported by multiple strands of evidence.
  Predictions made by evolution have been confirmed many times. Evolution has the evidence to support it, YEC does not. Can you show me a fossil of a cow or a sheep from before the flood? Can you show me the remains of a city from before the flood? YEC has no evidence, all it can do is to snipe at evolution from the sidelines.
  
  rossum

 

[rossum]

Change from species to another due to genetic mutations-Very Unlikely.

The smallest genetic change I am aware of between different species is three mutations difference between Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi. One mutation changes the colour and the other two change the annual breeding season, so they do not mate in the wild. Your opinion on this point is wrong.

I recommend watching Expelled with Ben Stein!

I recommend saving your money.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But this is exactly what I mean. The educational system in US taught me that the theory of evolution was an undenialble fact.

Evolution is a fact - genomes change over time. This is different from the theory of evolution which deals with the mechanisms that cause the observed change over time.

No other theories or contrary opions were discussed or studied.

Correct, because there are no other scientific theories that can explain the fact of evolution. In a science lesson only science should be taught. Creationism belongs in Sunday School, not a science class. ID belongs in a politics class, not a science class.

But to jump from species to species–I don’t think so. No evidence and no link.

There is much evidence and many links. Start with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

We are all almost 99percent DNA connected. HMMM…maybe we all come from THE ONE.:yup:

Indeed, ourselves and chimpanzees both evolved from a common ancestor.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Creationism belongs in Sunday School …

Ok, I guess we’ll have to attack evolution in our religious-oriented forums like Sunday School … and perhaps places where Catholics gather to discuss issues.