Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[o_mlly]

You thought that pie representation was somehow different to the tree. It is EXACTLY the same. Pick any metazoa from the three o’clock position (that’s you by the way) and follow it back and where do you get to? Just near the point where bacteria and archaea split? Do you see where EVERYTHING has evolved from that point?

Yes. The pie was an improvement. As a graphic it at least it relieved us of the implication of a hierarchy.

Pick any metazoa from the three o’clock position (that’s you by the way) and follow it back and where do you get to? Just near the point where bacteria and archaea split? Do you see where EVERYTHING has evolved from that point?

You continue to prove my point. I ask, “What evidence that human life evolved from non-human life.” You say, “Look at the tree. There, at your 3 o’clock, go back to the point where … no farther back to where the Archaeans split from the Vulcans … Don’t you see it? EVERYTHING …”

Read this carefully: The “tree” is not real; the tree is a metaphor. Referring to the metaphor as proof of the theory is the terrible logical error (circular reasoning) that amateur scienctists continues to labor under.

 

[o_mlly]

I see no reason to distinguish man’s intelligence in this regard from all the other faculties of man which have evolved. Do you?

If you have no evidence that man’s intelligence evolved, I accept that. The claim then becomes merely your opinion. What other faculties evolved? What evidence for those?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PickyPicky:

Well, if we’re talking about man, his intelligence would have done the trick, and it’s his intelligence that evolved.

Do you have any evidence that man’s intelligence has evolved?

Well, yes. Man has it. The pre-human hominids did not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Read this carefully: The “tree” is not real; the tree is a metaphor. Referring to the metaphor as proof of the theory is the terrible logical error (circular reasoning) that amateur scienctists continues to labor under.

You say that as if you are arguing against someone here, but I’m afraid you opponent is imaginary. There is no one here that is arguing that the “Tree of Life” is more than a metaphor, or that it is proof of anything. But by all means, rail on!

 

[o_mlly]

Well, yes. Man has it. The pre-human hominids did not.

Got any evidence? I think not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Well, yes. Man has it. The pre-human hominids did not.

Got any evidence? I think not.

Evidence that man has intelligence: The Encyclopedia Britannica. iPhones. Swiss Army knives. Evidence that pre-human hominids did not have intelligence: The total absence of anything like the Encyclopedia Britannica, iPhones, or Swiss Army knives. If they had intelligence, it was not comparable to what modern humans have.

 

[edwest211]

An assumption is made than man’s brain upgraded itself.

 

[edwest211]

How did they survive? Which hominids are you referring to?

 

[Lee1]

Science has revealed a lot about how God creates. I don’t see a dichotomy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How did they survive?

By being well-suited to their environment, probably. There are many species without intelligence that are surviving very well, even to today. Consider mosquitoes, for example.

Which hominids are you referring to?

Does it matter? To show that intelligence evolved, it is only necessary to find one ancestor species without that level of intelligence. So let’s say we are referring to the very earliest primates. Where are their iPhones?

 

[o_mlly]

Evidence that pre-human hominids did not have intelligence: The total absence of anything like the Encyclopedia Britannica, iPhones, or Swiss Army knives.

Does it have to be the Swiss Army kind?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

More to the point, animals are intelligent:

Loading…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This highly correlated composite of cognitive traits suggests social, technical and ecological abilities have coevolved in primates, indicative of an across-species general intelligence that includes elements of cultural intelligence.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You thought that pie representation was somehow different to the tree. It is EXACTLY the same. Pick any metazoa from the three o’clock position (that’s you by the way) and follow it back and where do you get to? Just near the point where bacteria and archaea split? Do you see where EVERYTHING has evolved from that point?

Yes. The pie was an improvement. As a graphic it at least it relieved us of the implication of a hierarchy.

Pick any metazoa from the three o’clock position (that’s you by the way) and follow it back and where do you get to? Just near the point where bacteria and archaea split? Do you see where EVERYTHING has evolved from that point?

You continue to prove my point. I ask, “What evidence that human life evolved from non-human life.” You say, “Look at the tree. There, at your 3 o’clock, go back to the point where … no farther back to where the Archaeans split from the Vulcans … Don’t you see it? EVERYTHING …”

Read this carefully: The “tree” is not real; the tree is a metaphor. Referring to the metaphor as proof of the theory is the terrible logical error (circular reasoning) that amateur scienctists continues to labor under.

Holy Toledo…

The pie DOES indicate a hierarchy. That’s ALL it shows. Start at where bacteria and archaea split and work your way clockwise. Everything in a clockwise direction is further along the evolutionary process than that which preceded it. How can you not understand this?

And simple diagrams meant for school books are not PROOF of evolution. Who on earth said that they were? They are simple (one would have thought) diagrammatic representations of the evolutionary process. Remember? The process with which you said you had no problem? Well, until you found out what it actually meant.

 

[rossum]

More to the point, animals are intelligent:

Yes, animals have varying degrees of intelligence. Where something exists in varying degrees, evolution can work at the boundaries to increase the degree to which that thing works. Intelligence is just one such thing. Humans have specialised in intelligence; whales have specialised in swimming; cheetahs have specialised in running fast.

Our ancestors were less intelligent than us. Whales ancestors could not swim as well as whales. Cheetahs ancestors could not run as fast as cheetahs.

Evolution starts with random mutations. When you are near a boundary, some of those random mutations will push you just a short way over the previous boundary. If that short extension of the boundary is beneficial then the modified gene will become more common.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

Since science can’t take God and put Him in a room, it cannot support divinely revealed truth, or miracles. My position is that there is no evidence of a “no God needed” process, which means only an ideology is being promoted here.

 

[Lee1]

Sorry I’m not bright enough to answer, really.

 

[Bradskii]

Incidentally, one of the diagrams shown in an earlier post was from here: https://www.evogeneao.com/learn/tree-of-life

"This Tree of Life diagram is based primarily on the evolutionary relationships so wonderfully related in Dr. Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale, and timetree.org

This diagram is NOT intended to be a scholarly reference tool! It is intended to be an easy-to-understand illustration of the core evolution principle; we are related not only to every living thing, but also to everything that has ever lived on Earth ."

It’s for fourth graders. Pitched at their level so they can understand the evolutionary HIERARCHY. Lost on some here though.

 

[rossum]

Since science can’t take God and put Him in a room, it cannot support divinely revealed truth, or miracles.

Neither can most religions. Do you support the “divinely revealed truth, or miracles” in the Book of Mormon or in the Bhagavad Gita? Do you think that science should accept the “divinely revealed truth, or miracles” in the Book of Mormon or the Bhagavad Gita?

Be very careful what you ask for, or you might find your local Imam teaching science from the “divinely revealed truth, or miracles” in the Qur’an.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

My position is that there is no evidence of a "no God needed…

Exactly right. And I say that as an atheist. So no ideology is being promoted here. And you know that full well. And you have been asked on more than one ocassion to back up your claim.

You have not because you cannot. So how are we to take comments that bear no relationship to the truth? How would you describe them?

 

[o_mlly]

Our ancestors were less intelligent than us. Whales ancestors could not swim as well as whales. Cheetahs ancestors could not run as fast as cheetahs.

If you mean by “our ancestors” our human progenitors then I’d like to see evidence. For instance, evidence that the intelligence of the ancient Egyptians (assuming 4M years is sufficient time) were less intelligent than modern man.

 

[rossum]

If you mean by “our ancestors” our human progenitors then I’d like to see evidence. For instance, evidence that the intelligence of the ancient Egyptians (assuming 4M years is sufficient time) were less intelligent than modern man.

No, I mean Australopithecus and Homo habilis. Ancient Egyptians were Homo sapiens the same species as ourselves.

rossum