Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[siamesecat]

Another question to the evolutionist. Is it taught in evolution that something ape-ish bred with something human-ish and that common ancestor gave us modern man?

I’m not an expert but I’ll try and explain. There was some ape-ish creature that was our common ancestor a long time ago. A very long time ago.

One group of the ape creature ended up in one area, another group in another area.

One group evolved and became modern apes, which are DIFFERENT from our common ancestor. The common ancestor was ape-like but it was not anything alive today - we were not born of chimps or gorillas. We AND chimps/gorillas descended from the same common ancestor.

The other group slowly became more human. A mutation would make one baby ape a little smarter than average. The intelligence made this baby survive better - maybe it was able to figure out how to protect itself better, or make tools to get food, etc. It and others like it survived better than other apes, lived longer, and had more and healthier offspring, some of which inherited their slightly increased intelligence. Some are born a little more erect in stance, which helps for one reason or another, and they survive better and have children that are also a little taller. Slowly, different mutations result in what we recognize as ‘human’ characteristics. VERY slowly, these features become more prevalent in the population, and continue to develop. Intelligence slowly continues to incraese, because a more intelligent animal is going to most likely survive better. Slowly, the ape population is becoming more and more ‘human’, and those who are not evolving as quickly die out in competition with the more ‘human’ apes. After millions of years, we get humans as we know it.

 

[siamesecat]

I am a creationist (a non-evolutionist) and I just believe that God created the neandethals out of dust just like he did Adam later in history - except with Adam, man was able to be truly civilized and endowed with supernatural gifts and pretenatural gifts that made him a little less than the angels - a true son of God and not an animal. My big question to you is, what do the evolutionists have to say about the angels, who we know exist?

Could you please show me how we know angels exist?

 

[ready]

I’m not an expert but I’ll try and explain. There was some ape-ish creature that was our common ancestor a long time ago. A very long time ago.

One group of the ape creature ended up in one area, another group in another area.

One group evolved and became modern apes, which are DIFFERENT from our common ancestor. The common ancestor was ape-like but it was not anything alive today - we were not born of chimps or gorillas. We AND chimps/gorillas descended from the same common ancestor.

The other group slowly became more human. A mutation would make one baby ape a little smarter than average. The intelligence made this baby survive better - maybe it was able to figure out how to protect itself better, or make tools to get food, etc. It and others like it survived better than other apes, lived longer, and had more and healthier offspring, some of which inherited their slightly increased intelligence. Some are born a little more erect in stance, which helps for one reason or another, and they survive better and have children that are also a little taller. Slowly, different mutations result in what we recognize as ‘human’ characteristics. VERY slowly, these features become more prevalent in the population, and continue to develop. Intelligence slowly continues to incraese, because a more intelligent animal is going to most likely survive better. Slowly, the ape population is becoming more and more ‘human’, and those who are not evolving as quickly die out in competition with the more ‘human’ apes. After millions of years, we get humans as we know it.

Thanks, siamesecat, for the explanation. I really appreciate it!

 

[ready]

Could you please show me how we know angels exist?

It is Church dogma. The Church even teaches us that we all have a guardian angel and that Archangel St. Michael existed and took on the devil and that Archangel St. Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin at the Annunciation and that Archangel St. Rapheal appeared to Tobit, etc… Besides, in the credo we say every Sunday we affirm our belief in God’s creation of the angels: “of all that is seen and unseen”.

 

[siamesecat]

It is Church dogma. The Church even teaches us that we all have a guardian angel and that Archangel St. Michael existed and took on the devil and that Archangel St. Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin at the Annunciation and that Archangel St. Rapheal appeared to Tobit, etc… Besides, in the credo we say every Sunday we affirm our belief in God’s creation of the angels: “of all that is seen and unseen”.

i’m glad you understood my evolution explanation

I understand that Church teaching is there are angels, but we have no scientific proof of them, so they don’t factor into our scientific explanations of the world. That is a religious belief that I respect your right to have, but it doesn’t have much basis in reality as far as I can see. Who knows, though. It’s frustrating to me how I’ll never know for sure who or what created the world and how it developed and if there are other planets like ours out there somewhere. Life is a mysterious thing, which is why I don’t rule out a god completely.

 

[Aramis]

Another question to the evolutionist. Is it taught in evolution that something ape-ish bred with something human-ish and that common ancestor gave us modern man?

No. The Human line can be attributed to a pair with matching mutations of a creature that was from a species which had at least two divergent groups. At some point, two members of that species of ape developed fuzed chromosomes 12 and 13 (of chimps_ into chromosome 2 of humans, reducing the Chromosome count. Some numberings of the chimp chromosomes use the human numbering, but with the two components of what is in humans chromosome 2 labeled “2A” and “2B”…

Given the rarity of disparate chromosomal numbers being able to produce viable offspring, let alone reproductively viable ones, it’s likely we are in fact, all descended from one pair of lucky mutants from an extinct species which had 3 distinct subgroups; two with separate “2A” and “2B”, and one, which had just the merged “2”…

While it’s quite possible the physical act of mating occurred between this mutant pair’s offspring and non-mutants of the progenitor, those matings probably didn’t produce reproductively capable offspring; it even unlikely that their children could produce offspring with the progenitor group at all, even tho’ sperm could penetrate egg. Science can’t rule out that it could happen, nor can science prove it has happened; but since one of the defining characteristics of Humans is the fused chromosome 2, it’s really quite unlikely. (Which is as close as real science ever comes to “No, it can’t happen” since quantum mechanics became accepted.) (Neanderthals also had 46 chromosomes, with the same fused 2. DNA has been recovered from neanderthal skeletons, and the mitochondrial DNA is NOT in the “modern human” range of haplotypes… )

Also of note is that the human genome project says that our mitochondrial DNA shows the level of drift expected for about 170,000 years to the most recent common maternal ancestor of all those tested. Likewise, the studies of the Y chromosome indicate a divergence that would be expected by the known rate for about 60,000 years amongst all men included in that study. (As a technical note, there are variations in the rate expectation based upon various factors; there’s a big uncertainty factor in just what the exact rate should be. Anatomically modern humans show up about 120KYA, and that’s towards the low end of the expected date for mitochondrial eve…)

and here is where theology takes over: At some point, God picked two of them, and infused that which truly is in the image of the immortal and eternal father, the immortal soul, and then those ensouled beings sinned. It might have been that first 46 chromosome ape pair. It might have been their daughter and son, interbreeding. If the DNA divergence is an accurate measure, then it probably didn’t occur more recently than the “mitochondrial eve”… (for if it did, then some ensoulled beings bred with non-ensouled hominid beasts… given the prohibitions on mating with beasts in Genesis, I’m inclined to put it more recently than that female.) But at some point, the soul was added to the mix, and sin entered the world through that ensouled being, and we are all descended from that ensouled being who sinned and his mate.

References
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXY_male
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Eve
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Note that the wikipedia articles cited have extensive links to established sources.

 

[ready]

i’m glad you understood my evolution explanation

I understand that Church teaching is there are angels, but we have no scientific proof of them, so they don’t factor into our scientific explanations of the world. That is a religious belief that I respect your right to have, but it doesn’t have much basis in reality as far as I can see. Who knows, though. It’s frustrating to me how I’ll never know for sure who or what created the world and how it developed and if there are other planets like ours out there somewhere. Life is a mysterious thing, which is why I don’t rule out a god completely.

I don’t rule out evolution either. It seems the whole universe was created for humans on the earth, the only planet in the universe where there is life, with the sun to mark our days and the moon to mark certain times of the year, and the other planets for us to bettter understand our own planet. I feel even behind what appears to be randomness and chance there is purely God’s order.

 

[ready]

No. The Human line can be attributed to a pair with matching mutations of a creature that was from a species which had at least two divergent groups. At some point, two members of that species of ape developed fuzed chromosomes 12 and 13 (of chimps_ into chromosome 2 of humans, reducing the Chromosome count. Some numberings of the chimp chromosomes use the human numbering, but with the two components of what is in humans chromosome 2 labeled “2A” and “2B”…

Given the rarity of disparate chromosomal numbers being able to produce viable offspring, let alone reproductively viable ones, it’s likely we are in fact, all descended from one pair of lucky mutants from an extinct species which had 3 distinct subgroups; two with separate “2A” and “2B”, and one, which had just the merged “2”…

While it’s quite possible the physical act of mating occurred between this mutant pair’s offspring and non-mutants of the progenitor, those matings probably didn’t produce reproductively capable offspring; it even unlikely that their children could produce offspring with the progenitor group at all, even tho’ sperm could penetrate egg. Science can’t rule out that it could happen, nor can science prove it has happened; but since one of the defining characteristics of Humans is the fused chromosome 2, it’s really quite unlikely. (Which is as close as real science ever comes to “No, it can’t happen” since quantum mechanics became accepted.) (Neanderthals also had 46 chromosomes, with the same fused 2. DNA has been recovered from neanderthal skeletons, and the mitochondrial DNA is NOT in the “modern human” range of haplotypes… )

Also of note is that the human genome project says that our mitochondrial DNA shows the level of drift expected for about 170,000 years to the most recent common maternal ancestor of all those tested. Likewise, the studies of the Y chromosome indicate a divergence that would be expected by the known rate for about 60,000 years amongst all men included in that study. (As a technical note, there are variations in the rate expectation based upon various factors; there’s a big uncertainty factor in just what the exact rate should be. Anatomically modern humans show up about 120KYA, and that’s towards the low end of the expected date for mitochondrial eve…)

and here is where theology takes over: At some point, God picked two of them, and infused that which truly is in the image of the immortal and eternal father, the immortal soul, and then those ensouled beings sinned. It might have been that first 46 chromosome ape pair. It might have been their daughter and son, interbreeding. If the DNA divergence is an accurate measure, then it probably didn’t occur more recently than the “mitochondrial eve”… (for if it did, then some ensoulled beings bred with non-ensouled hominid beasts… given the prohibitions on mating with beasts in Genesis, I’m inclined to put it more recently than that female.) But at some point, the soul was added to the mix, and sin entered the world through that ensouled being, and we are all descended from that ensouled being who sinned and his mate.

References
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXY_male
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Eve
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Note that the wikipedia articles cited have extensive links to established sources.

Thanks, Aramis, for the great explanation!

 

[Riseof_Rome]

Anyone else notice that Christians outside of the USA don’t argue over evolution. Know why? Because it seems they are smarter than the ones here and accept evolution is how God made us and life here on this planet. The most sad thing is watching Catholics being suckered by these myths of the American religious right. I always thought Catholics in this country were more sane than the jingoistic neo-puritan theocrats, but it seems I might be wrong.

Another good video I found

Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

P.S. Father Groeschel I believe did a good show on evolution and how it conforms to Catholic views, I hope maybe someone here knows a link for that

If this is a bash on conservatives I’d tone it down. Conservatives are the only moral political group. If their only crime is denying evolution then I would say all the good they stand for outweighs that by far.

 

[wapsi]

If this is a bash on conservatives I’d tone it down. Conservatives are the only moral political group.

I don’t think any large political grouping could be described as “the only moral political group.” Sorry, but we humans are too mixed in our beliefs and attitudes. And, generally speaking, conservatives don’t do well on poverty and torture issues.

I do agree, however, that there is no reason to bash any large political grouping.

 

[a_priori]

If this is a bash on conservatives I’d tone it down. Conservatives are the only moral political group. If their only crime is denying evolution then I would say all the good they stand for outweighs that by far.

Conservatism doesn’t presuppose denying evolution.

 

[greg_b]

If this is a bash on conservatives I’d tone it down. Conservatives are the only moral political group. If their only crime is denying evolution then I would say all the good they stand for outweighs that by far.

I spit out my water laughing when I read that

 

[greg_b]

skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4065.mp3

“How to Argue with a Creationist”

Everyone here should listen to this. Shows the total flaws in each and every creationist argument. The only one he doesn’t use as an example is “creationism leads to cannibalism, nazism, etc” but that’s the easiest to refute.

 

[buffalo]

skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4065.mp3

“How to Argue with a Creationist”

Everyone here should listen to this. Shows the total flaws in each and every creationist argument. The only one he doesn’t use as an example is “creationism leads to cannibalism, nazism, etc” but that’s the easiest to refute.

I am still waiting for an answer to his question. You have been avoiding it.

I asked:

You agree Eve came from Adam?

You agree polygenism is out?

 

[greg_b]

I am still waiting for an answer to his question. You have been avoiding it.

I asked:

You agree Eve came from Adam?

You agree polygenism is out?

Why do you keep on insisting on the literal Eve coming from Adam’s body? That has not been defined as “Ex Cathedra”, therefore it can be considered allegory/symbolism and therefore does not contradict evolution.

 

[Riseof_Rome]

I spit out my water laughing when I read that

So you are a liberal…explains a lot. I tried discussing this with you before on a mature level but apparently that’s not going to happen. You keep spamming links to random websites while avoiding real issues people are asking you. Make up your own mind and defend your beliefs, don’t hide behind what someone else has posted on another website.

 

[Riseof_Rome]

Conservatism doesn’t presuppose denying evolution.

I understand that but it was inferred before that they do, so all I am saying that if the worst thing conservatives do is oppose evolution, which they don’t, then it is minimized by all the good they do.

 

[space_trojan]

Why do you keep on insisting on the literal Eve coming from Adam’s body? That has not been defined as “Ex Cathedra”, therefore it can be considered allegory/symbolism and therefore does not contradict evolution.

It was neither an insistence of the literal eve coming from adam’s body nor it is an issue of it being contradictory to evolution…being of it not within ex cathedra scope is obviously not the point either, but rather, do you believe and agree that polygenism is out by disagreeing that eve came from adam? It is such a simple question but you had to drag in ex cathedra thingy while you know very well(or did you really know what ex cathedra meant at all?) that it is off tangent for the very reason that ex cathedra (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals, but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed.

Makes one wonder where on earth you learned how to debate like an beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep…but hey I don’t want to be issued warnings of membership denial or termination:shrug:

 

[space_trojan]

and to put it plainly, infallible authority(ex chathedra) is for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ’s teaching.

 

[buffalo]

Why do you keep on insisting on the literal Eve coming from Adam’s body? That has not been defined as “Ex Cathedra”, therefore it can be considered allegory/symbolism and therefore does not contradict evolution.

Let’s start here:

CCC

[371](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/371.htm’) God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.