What is evolution and how do we know it's right?

[Autodidact]

This thread was started in response to HaLi, to talk about what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is and how science knows that it is correct.

[Nilloc James]

I am an ape. You are an ape. Mouhamed was an ape. Jeseus was an ape. Abraham lincholn was aan ape. Sir John A Macdonald was an ape. Mother teresa was an ape. Norman Borlaug was an ape. Every pope good and bad was an ape. My grandmother is an ape. The other people on this bus with me as I type are apes. Every saint and every convict is or was an ape.

Our evolutionary relatedness is not a moral statement. The only people who talk about evolution as a moral guide are those who reject it venomously and without comprehension of what they denounce.

We are all apes together - we can either be apes that get along or apes that don't. Im an ape; your an ape. How is it racist to say we are all apes together?

You left out Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Are they a couple of apes too?

Do their children look like a couple of apes to you too?

How about Reverend Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson? Are they a couple of apes too?

Barack obama is a home sapien
Homo sapiens are homindae (nerd speak for great ape)
Ergo, barack obama is an ape.

Basic sillogisms are so much fun.

All members of homo sapiens are apes.

[Ozgirl]

The claim that all humans are apes is an assumption since very few humans will say they are apes.

No, the claim that all humans are apes is also a conclusion, base on the observation of shared features between us and non-human apes.

Observations of humans and apes alone are insufficient criteria by which to reach a scientific conclusion. Claiming that humans are apes is simply a hypothesis until scientifically proven.

Why do you keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution?

I don't. I don't say that all Jews reject evolution either, so you are making a false claim.

There are many Islamic theistic evolutionists. While I understand that many are poor and have no access to education, there are many who are well educated.

Rich or poor, Islamic evolutionists would have to say that all Muslisms are apes and that Prophet Muhammed's ancestors were African apes.

Sure, add Human(Bust Nak) to the list of permise. QED.

Being able to read, write and speak is proof of your being human as well as proof of your not being a dumb ape.

You give far too little credit to humanity.

What about apes? Are you excluding apes from humanity now?

People may not know the latin phrases or the logic symbols but they understand basic proofs:

Of course. The fact that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that they are an ape is why most people know that they are not apes.

All humans are apes. Arabs are humans therefore Arabs are apes.

That is merely a syllogism. You have to demonstrate that you are an ape in order to prove that you are an ape.

As a matter of fact, yes we do.

I have never heard of any Jews, Muslims or Arabs categorizing or classifying themsleves as apes so I would suggest that categorizing Jews, Muslims and Arabs as apes is highy irrational, abnormal and irresponsible thing to do.

Can you prove that categorizing or classifying Jews, Muslims or Arabs as apes is a rational and normal thing to do?

Taxonomic ranks are arbitrary. If a consistent application of variation was used such as in Darwins finches being 'different species', then the races of mankind should also be different species as would the various breeds of dogs.

Vaguary and confusion keep evolutionary theory alive.

The last time I debated a Muslim they went on about begats and reckoned Lucy the ape could talk and was a biblical figure. When I asked how Lucy spoke, he said by divine messages directly into her brain. Go figure!

"But by that argument, apes are monkeys. Because the living monkeys -- New World and Old -- do not have a common ancestor that living apes and humans do not also have.

Ah. The perils of pedantry.

I resolve this problem by recognizing that neither "ape" nor "monkey" is a taxonomic term. We have good terms for the monophyletic groups -- "hominoids" are apes + humans, "anthropoids" are apes + humans + monkeys. We can recognize that apes are not monkeys (because they aren't), and we can recognize in the same way that humans are not apes (because we aren't)".

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phyl ... -2011.html

Evolutionists invent a taxonomic system and the pick a box traits that suit. It basically means nothing other than evolutionary researchers can be as biased as they choose according to the latest flavour of the month.

If an ape or hominid was discerned by having a fur coat, then apes and homonid clades would not contain mankind.

If a human was discerned by the use of sophisticated language and the ability to make sense of the world by the use of abstract thought, then apes and homonids would still not include mankind.

Evolutionary taxonomic rankings are arbitrary and any suite of traits can be chosen to support whatever one wants.

This link speaks to mankind being closer to an orangutan than a chimp.

But the widely accepted notion that greatest overall molecular similarity is synonymous with most closely related derives not from any empirical evidence
but merely from the acceptance without question of the molecular assumption:

In addition, in order to compare supposedly homologous DNA sequences one must align sequences of different lengths, which is a procedure that requires assumptions about deletions or additions that underlie the observed disparity in nucleotide sequence order and length. In the end, there is no objective way to assess the relative phylogenetic value for the number of gaps and substitutions that are assumed in order to align sequences of different lengths (Marks, 2003).

Thus, statements of sequence homology are not generated from individual
comparative outgroup character analysis as they are in morphological analyses. Rather, the claim of sequence homology is the result of an overall best fit between an artificially reconstructed sequence and subsequent measures of phenetic similarity

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/jbi_2141.pdf

Regardless of whether or not evolutionists accept it, this paper is a good example of how pick a box homology can be used.

Evolutionary researchers can use the same fossils to demonstrate ancestry to ornagutans and chimps, as well as to a knuckle walking ancestor and not a knuckle walker. They can pick and choose with their genomic comparisons also. It is all arbitrary, assumptive and most certainly none of it should be called empirical data.

All this is demonstrated with no ancestral fossil evidence for either chimps or gorillas.

Morphological and genetic homology and purported deep ancestral connections is a biased waste of everyones time but certainly provides the platform for evolutionists to go around in vague and unsubstantiated cirlces.

Nilloc James you are correct in saying that evolutionary taxonomy on any taxon is 'nerd speak'.

The only thing that makes mankind an ape is the fact that evolutionists rarely, if ever, know what they are talking about, and have mountians of misrepresentation to support their vaguary and biased assumptions.

[Clownboat]

The claim that all humans are apes is an assumption since very few humans will say they are apes.

No, the claim that all humans are apes is also a conclusion, base on the observation of shared features between us and non-human apes.

Observations of humans and apes alone are insufficient criteria by which to reach a scientific conclusion. Claiming that humans are apes is simply a hypothesis until scientifically proven.

Why do you keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution?

I don't. I don't say that all Jews reject evolution either, so you are making a false claim.

There are many Islamic theistic evolutionists. While I understand that many are poor and have no access to education, there are many who are well educated.

Rich or poor, Islamic evolutionists would have to say that all Muslisms are apes and that Prophet Muhammed's ancestors were African apes.

Sure, add Human(Bust Nak) to the list of permise. QED.

Being able to read, write and speak is proof of your being human as well as proof of your not being a dumb ape.

You give far too little credit to humanity.

What about apes? Are you excluding apes from humanity now?

People may not know the latin phrases or the logic symbols but they understand basic proofs:

Of course. The fact that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that they are an ape is why most people know that they are not apes.

All humans are apes. Arabs are humans therefore Arabs are apes.

That is merely a syllogism. You have to demonstrate that you are an ape in order to prove that you are an ape.

As a matter of fact, yes we do.

I have never heard of any Jews, Muslims or Arabs categorizing or classifying themsleves as apes so I would suggest that categorizing Jews, Muslims and Arabs as apes is highy irrational, abnormal and irresponsible thing to do.

Can you prove that categorizing or classifying Jews, Muslims or Arabs as apes is a rational and normal thing to do?

Taxonomic ranks are arbitrary. If a consistent application of variation was used such as in Darwins finches being 'different species', then the races of mankind should also be different species as would the various breeds of dogs.

Vaguary and confusion keep evolutionary theory alive.

The last time I debated a Muslim they went on about begats and reckoned Lucy the ape could talk and was a biblical figure. When I asked how Lucy spoke, he said by divine messages directly into her brain. Go figure!

"But by that argument, apes are monkeys. Because the living monkeys -- New World and Old -- do not have a common ancestor that living apes and humans do not also have.

Ah. The perils of pedantry.

I resolve this problem by recognizing that neither "ape" nor "monkey" is a taxonomic term. We have good terms for the monophyletic groups -- "hominoids" are apes + humans, "anthropoids" are apes + humans + monkeys. We can recognize that apes are not monkeys (because they aren't), and we can recognize in the same way that humans are not apes (because we aren't)".

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phyl ... -2011.html

Evolutionists invent a taxonomic system and the pick a box traits that suit. It basically means nothing other than evolutionary researchers can be as biased as they choose according to the latest flavour of the month.

If an ape or hominid was discerned by having a fur coat, then apes and homonid clades would not contain mankind.

If a human was discerned by the use of sophisticated language and the ability to make sense of the world by the use of abstract thought, then apes and homonids would still not include mankind.

Evolutionary taxonomic rankings are arbitrary and any suite of traits can be chosen to support whatever one wants.

This link speaks to mankind being closer to an orangutan than a chimp.

But the widely accepted notion that greatest overall molecular similarity is synonymous with most closely related derives not from any empirical evidence
but merely from the acceptance without question of the molecular assumption:

In addition, in order to compare supposedly homologous DNA sequences one must align sequences of different lengths, which is a procedure that requires assumptions about deletions or additions that underlie the observed disparity in nucleotide sequence order and length. In the end, there is no objective way to assess the relative phylogenetic value for the number of gaps and substitutions that are assumed in order to align sequences of different lengths (Marks, 2003).

Thus, statements of sequence homology are not generated from individual
comparative outgroup character analysis as they are in morphological analyses. Rather, the claim of sequence homology is the result of an overall best fit between an artificially reconstructed sequence and subsequent measures of phenetic similarity

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/jbi_2141.pdf

Regardless of whether or not evolutionists accept it, this paper is a good example of how pick a box homology can be used.

Evolutionary researchers can use the same fossils to demonstrate ancestry to ornagutans and chimps, as well as to a knuckle walking ancestor and not a knuckle walker. They can pick and choose with their genomic comparisons also. It is all arbitrary, assumptive and most certainly none of it should be called empirical data.

All this is demonstrated with no ancestral fossil evidence for either chimps or gorillas.

Morphological and genetic homology and purported deep ancestral connections is a biased waste of everyones time but certainly provides the platform for evolutionists to go around in vague and unsubstantiated cirlces.

Nilloc James you are correct in saying that evolutionary taxonomy on any taxon is 'nerd speak'.

The only thing that makes mankind an ape is the fact that evolutionists rarely, if ever, know what they are talking about, and have mountians of misrepresentation to support their vaguary and biased assumptions.

Changing the name of the species does not alter the relationships or lineage. Proving that humans are apes will probably never convince the hardened creationists anyway. Their cosy belief system has to be protected from dangerous theories at all costs.

[Neandertal Ned]

I am an ape. You are an ape. Mouhamed was an ape. Jeseus was an ape. Abraham lincholn was aan ape. Sir John A Macdonald was an ape. Mother teresa was an ape. Norman Borlaug was an ape. Every pope good and bad was an ape. My grandmother is an ape. The other people on this bus with me as I type are apes. Every saint and every convict is or was an ape.

Our evolutionary relatedness is not a moral statement. The only people who talk about evolution as a moral guide are those who reject it venomously and without comprehension of what they denounce.

We are all apes together - we can either be apes that get along or apes that don't. Im an ape; your an ape. How is it racist to say we are all apes together?

You left out Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Are they a couple of apes too?

Do their children look like a couple of apes to you too?

How about Reverend Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson? Are they a couple of apes too?

Barack obama is a home sapien
Homo sapiens are homindae (nerd speak for great ape)
Ergo, barack obama is an ape.

Basic sillogisms are so much fun.

Yeah, sillygisms are fun.

All members of homo sapiens are apes.

Homo sapiens can be called saps for short. I'm a man and I will thank you to address me as one, not some sap.

[Neandertal Ned]

Also - are all forks silverware?

Would you like to start a thread on forks or silverware?

According to your belief system. God did not give you the spirit of fear, but of power, love and a sound mind if my memory is correct.

Why are you so afraid to answer this question? It has been asked of you many times. Do you not have a god on your side? Will he not be there for you? Are your beliefs a fraud that you are afraid will be exposed?

I don't answer off-topic questions unless I choose to. Simple.

Now, would you stop worrying about me and demonstrate that you are an ape.

[Neandertal Ned]

Taxonomic ranks are arbitrary. If a consistent application of variation was used such as in Darwins finches being 'different species', then the races of mankind should also be different species as would the various breeds of dogs.

Vaguary and confusion keep evolutionary theory alive.

The last time I debated a Muslim they went on about begats and reckoned Lucy the ape could talk and was a biblical figure. When I asked how Lucy spoke, he said by divine messages directly into her brain. Go figure!

"But by that argument, apes are monkeys. Because the living monkeys -- New World and Old -- do not have a common ancestor that living apes and humans do not also have.

Ah. The perils of pedantry.

I resolve this problem by recognizing that neither "ape" nor "monkey" is a taxonomic term. We have good terms for the monophyletic groups -- "hominoids" are apes + humans, "anthropoids" are apes + humans + monkeys. We can recognize that apes are not monkeys (because they aren't), and we can recognize in the same way that humans are not apes (because we aren't)".

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phyl ... -2011.html

Evolutionists invent a taxonomic system and the pick a box traits that suit. It basically means nothing other than evolutionary researchers can be as biased as they choose according to the latest flavour of the month.

If an ape or hominid was discerned by having a fur coat, then apes and homonid clades would not contain mankind.

If a human was discerned by the use of sophisticated language and the ability to make sense of the world by the use of abstract thought, then apes and homonids would still not include mankind.

Evolutionary taxonomic rankings are arbitrary and any suite of traits can be chosen to support whatever one wants.

This link speaks to mankind being closer to an orangutan than a chimp.

But the widely accepted notion that greatest overall molecular similarity is synonymous with most closely related derives not from any empirical evidence
but merely from the acceptance without question of the molecular assumption:

In addition, in order to compare supposedly homologous DNA sequences one must align sequences of different lengths, which is a procedure that requires assumptions about deletions or additions that underlie the observed disparity in nucleotide sequence order and length. In the end, there is no objective way to assess the relative phylogenetic value for the number of gaps and substitutions that are assumed in order to align sequences of different lengths (Marks, 2003).

Thus, statements of sequence homology are not generated from individual
comparative outgroup character analysis as they are in morphological analyses. Rather, the claim of sequence homology is the result of an overall best fit between an artificially reconstructed sequence and subsequent measures of phenetic similarity

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/jbi_2141.pdf

Regardless of whether or not evolutionists accept it, this paper is a good example of how pick a box homology can be used.

Evolutionary researchers can use the same fossils to demonstrate ancestry to ornagutans and chimps, as well as to a knuckle walking ancestor and not a knuckle walker. They can pick and choose with their genomic comparisons also. It is all arbitrary, assumptive and most certainly none of it should be called empirical data.

All this is demonstrated with no ancestral fossil evidence for either chimps or gorillas.

Morphological and genetic homology and purported deep ancestral connections is a biased waste of everyones time but certainly provides the platform for evolutionists to go around in vague and unsubstantiated cirlces.

A brilliant analysis and summary of Darwinism, Ozgirl. You make it so easy to understand evolution that I shall recommend your coursework to all students of biology. I am awarding you the Noble Peace Prize for best scientific researcher of the year! Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

[Neandertal Ned]

Nilloc James you are correct in saying that evolutionary taxonomy on any taxon is 'nerd speak'.

The only thing that makes mankind an ape is the fact that evolutionists rarely, if ever, know what they are talking about, and have mountians of misrepresentation to support their vaguary and biased assumptions.

I think Nilloc is just pretending to be an ape since I never heard of an ape that could read and write, much less know that it was an ape. Have you, Ozgirl?

[bernee51]

I am claiming they are fully human.

Good. In doing so you are denying that Jews, Muslims and Arabs can be either categorized or classified as apes by biologists.

You do mix things up dont you

I repeatall humans are classified (taxonomically) as apes. If the groups YOU chose to delineate are human then they are also apes.

It is you who is seeing them to be less so.

Hardly, since I am arguing against calling or classifying Jews, Muslims and Arabs as apes.

In doing so you are claiming they are less than fully human. This smacks of anti-semitism.

So why are you insisting that they are less than human?

I'm not categorizing Jews, Muslims and Arabs as apes. Biologists are.

Jews, Muslims and Arabs do not think they are apes. Only biologists do.

So you see yourself qualified to speak for Jews, Muslims and Arabs when describing them as less than human

Are you a biologist?

No. Are you?

[Bust Nak]

Observations of humans and apes alone are insufficient criteria by which to reach a scientific conclusion.

Incorrect. Observations is the cornerstone on which all science is based on.

Claiming that humans are apes is simply a hypothesis until scientifically proven.

No, theoies starts out as hypothesis. Humans being ape is not a theory but an observation.

I don't. I don't say that all Jews reject evolution either, so you are making a false claim.

Incorrect - this is what you said "I can't imagine any Jews, Arabs or Muslims calling themselves apes." Note the word "any" in the quote.

Rich or poor, Islamic evolutionists would have to say that all Muslisms are apes and that Prophet Muhammed's ancestors were African apes.

Correct. And they can do so with the same ease as Christian evolutionists say all Christians are apes and that Jesus' ancestors on his mother's side were African apes.

Being able to read, write and speak is proof of your being human as well as proof of your not being a dumb ape.

Correct. It is indeed proof that I am a human and not a dumb ape. However this is a red herring since it doesn't mean I am not an ape. Many of us apes are very clever.

What about apes? Are you excluding apes from humanity now?

Some apes are not as clever as others. Your other question doesn't make sense since humanity is a subset of apes and not the other way round. Still having problem with nested hierarchy?

Of course. The fact that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that they are an ape is why most people know that they are not apes.

Incorrect. We have just demostrated that with a simple proof. Did you know QED means "which was to be demonstrated" in latin?

That is merely a syllogism. You have to demonstrate that you are an ape in order to prove that you are an ape.

A "mere" syllogism is exactly what is requied to demostrate that we are apes.

I have never heard of any Jews, Muslims or Arabs categorizing or classifying themsleves as apes so I would suggest that categorizing Jews, Muslims and Arabs as apes is highy irrational, abnormal and irresponsible thing to do.

Argument from ignorance. "You've never heard of any..." doesn't mean no Jews, Muslims or Arabs categorizing or classifying themsleves as apes. How often do you talk to Jews, Muslims or Arabs about human evolution anyway? What was your sample size? How do you know you are talking to Jews, Muslims or Arabs who support evolution right in these forums?

On the other hand I can name Arab and Jewish evolution supporters fairly easily by looking up the directory in the biology departments of Middle Eastern/Israeli universities, there is a pretty good chance that some of these Arabs are Muslims too.

Can you prove that categorizing or classifying Jews, Muslims or Arabs as apes is a rational and normal thing to do?

Easy enough to poof it's rational - as it's conclusion based on simple observation. I am not sure it's a normal thing to do though, normal and rational doesn't necessarily go hand in hand.

Taxonomic ranks are arbitrary.

Well that depends on what you mean by arbitrary, I agree that there are any number of other ways to classify life, but there is a reason as to why we choose this one particular way of classifying life.

If a consistent application of variation was used such as in Darwins finches being 'different species', then the races of mankind should also be different species as would the various breeds of dogs.

Why shouldn't the finches not be classified as different species? They don't interbreed.

Vaguary and confusion keep evolutionary theory alive.

The fact that life doesn't fall into neat little boxes is evidence for evolution.

Evolutionists invent a taxonomic system and the pick a box traits that suit. It basically means nothing other than evolutionary researchers can be as biased as they choose according to the latest flavour of the month.

Actually modern taxonomy was invented well before Darwin came up with evolution, over a 100 years before the publishing of the origin of species.

If an ape or hominid was discerned by having a fur coat, then apes and homonid clades would not contain mankind...Evolutionary taxonomic rankings are arbitrary and any suite of traits can be chosen to support whatever one wants.

Does that mean you accept that human do ticks all the taxonomy boxes of great ape?

This link speaks to mankind being closer to an orangutan than a chimp...

All this is demonstrated with no ancestral fossil evidence for either chimps or gorillas.

I don't see how you came to this conclusion. There is quite a big difference between whether human are related more to chips or orangutans and whether we are related to chips or orangutans at all.

[Neandertal Ned]

I am claiming they are fully human.

Good. In doing so you are denying that Jews, Muslims and Arabs can be either categorized or classified as apes by biologists.

You do mix things up dont you

No, I clarify things, since "fully human" Jews, Muslims and Arabs cannot be part ape. See how clear and simple things are when you speak plain English and don't use Latin terminology to define and classify humans.

I repeatall humans are classified (taxonomically) as apes.

Why am I not surprised? You sound like a college professor reminding students that if they don't classify themselves as apes on the biology exam they will fail the course.

If the groups YOU chose to delineate are human then they are also apes.

Wouldn't that imply that the ancestors of Jews, Muslims and Arabs were also apes, some of which may have been the same tree-swinging and knuckle-walking African apes that you and other Darwinists think were your ancestors? You are not saying the human ancestors of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Prophet Muhammed were also the same tree-swinging and knuckle-walking African apes that you and other Darwinists think were your ancestors, are you? Why do you want to bring Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Prophet Muhammed as well as all living Jews, Muslims and Arabs down to your animal level? Animals are sub-human.

In doing so you are claiming they are less than fully human. This smacks of anti-semitism.

To the contrary, I think that categorizing Jews, Muslims and Arabs as subhuman animals is anti-Semitic and Islamophobic since Jews, Muslims and Arabs cannot be both "fully human" and subhuman animals at the same time. Why do biologists say that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are animals anyway? Are biologists animals?

So you see yourself qualified to speak for Jews, Muslims and Arabs when describing them as less than human

Do you think that biologists are qualified to speak for Jews, Muslims and Arabs when describing them as ape-like animals in biology textbooks? Biology teachers don't describe and categorize themselves as ape-like animals, do they? Is that the way you see and describe yourself?

No. Are you?

I would no more classify myself as a biologist than classify any Jew, Muslim, Arab or Christian as an ape or an animal. Why should I since I see humans as having been created higher than the animals and just a little lower than the angels. Jews, Muslims and Christians have a greater self-image and opinion of themselves than animalistic psychobiologists have of them, apparently.