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.

[Neandertal Ned]

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

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

Observation is only the first step of the scientific method, and since everyone makes observations, observations alone do not constitute science unless you want to define science as simply observing something. Is that definition of science acceptable to you?

theoies starts out as hypothesis. Humans being ape is not a theory but an observation.

The only apes that can be observed in Europe, North, Central or South America are caged in zoos and are clearly not human. Humans may be locked up in jails or prisons but not zoos. Zoos are for humans to observe caged animals. If humans were animals they could be locked up in zoo cages.
Wild apes can only be observed in Asia and Africa. Saying that Asians and Africans are apes means that Asians and Africans can be locked up in zoos. Saying that African or African-American people are apes only reinforces the belief that they are apes.

Although such grotesque characterizations of African Americans have largely disappeared from mainstream U.S. society, Eberhardt noted that science education could be partly responsible for reinforcing the view that blacks are less evolved than whites. An iconic 1970 illustration, March of Progress, published in the Time-Life book Early Man, depicts evolution beginning with a chimpanzee and ending with a white man. Its a legacy of our past that the endpoint of evolution is a white man, Eberhardt said. I dont think its intentional, but when people learn about human evolution, they walk away with a notion that people of African descent are closer to apes than people of European descent. When people think of a civilized person, a white man comes to mind.
Read more at http://scienceblog.com/15428/americans- ... UE35AFX.99

So no American can be be observed to be an ape. Americans can observe apes in zoos, and caged apes in zoos can observe the Americans observing them, but the observation of Africans and African-Americans only reinforces the notion that black American are apes.

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.

In post 1171, you asked: "Why do you keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution?"
In post 1176, I said: "I don't. I don't say that all Jews reject evolution either, so you are making a false claim."
The false claim you made was that I "keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution."
Nothing to do with "apes" or "any," despite your manipulation and misrepresentation of the evidence.

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.

Saying so with such ease makes them Darwinist apes and not Christians.

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.

You obviously think you are a clever ape but lack any ape's intellectual ability to prove that you are an ape. Real apes neither think nor know that they are apes or would ever classify you or themslevs as ape. Classification is a human enterprise alone and one of the God-given powers humans have been endowed with in order to be able to name and differentiate between things. Animals have no human knowledge.

Some apes are not as clever as others.

Obviously. You are not even a very clever human since you don't seem to be able to differentiate between humans and apes and think you are a member of some Ape Family.

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?

Don't tell me that you are nesting with apes! You haven't been hanging out on your Ape Family tree with any bononos, I hope.

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

Demonstrate it in English for our English-speaking friends, if you don't mind.

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

A rather weak demonstration of your being an ape and more of a demonstration of Latin logic.

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?

There are no Jews, Arabs or Muslims on the forum who will say they or any other Jew, Arab or Muslim are apes. Ape is a derogatory term when applied to Jews, Arabs and Muslims. Didn't you know that?

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.

No doubt you can, but none of these Arab and Jewish evolution supporters in the biology departments of Middle Eastern/Israeli universities would dare say that any other Jew, Arab or Muslim outside of their biology department is an ape. Can you quote one?

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.

So how can it be rational to see yourself as an ape if it is abnormal? Are you a psychobiologist?

[Clownboat]

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.

Readers: Notice that once again he dodged this question. We all know why it is not off-topic, and I feel that Ned does as well, but who cares about credibility when you have a god on your side.

All humans are members of the great ape family, there is nothing to demonstrate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

[Bust Nak]

Observation is only the first step of the scientific method, and since everyone makes observations, observations alone do not constitute science unless you want to define science as simply observing something.

So? How does that address the point that Humans are great apes is an observation?

Is that definition of science acceptable to you?

No, it's not acceptable. I gave you a definition of science that I do accept some posts ago if you remember.

The only apes that can be observed in Europe, North, Central or South America are caged in zoos and are clearly not human.

Incorrect. Most apes in Europe, North, Central or South America are not caged in zoos and are clearly human.

Humans may be locked up in jails or prisons but not zoos. Zoos are for humans to observe caged animals. If humans were animals they could be locked up in zoo cages.

Hasty generalization fallacy: Zoos are for humans to observe certain animals but not all animals.

Wild apes can only be observed in Asia and Africa. Saying that Asians and Africans are apes means that Asians and Africans can be locked up in zoos. Saying that African or African-American people are apes only reinforces the belief that they are apes.

Incorrect conclusion, from faulty permises. (Note, the word "conclusion," as opposed to "assumption.")

So no American can be be observed to be an ape.

How did you come to this conclusion from passage you quoted?

Americans can observe apes in zoos, and caged apes in zoos can observe the Americans observing them, but the observation of Africans and African-Americans only reinforces the notion that black American are apes.

What's wrong with reinforcing the notion that black American are apes?

In post 1171, you asked: "Why do you keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution?"
In post 1176, I said: "I don't. I don't say that all Jews reject evolution either, so you are making a false claim."
The false claim you made was that I "keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution."
Nothing to do with "apes" or "any," despite your manipulation and misrepresentation of the evidence.

What misrepresentation? The quote "I can't imagine any Jews, Arabs or Muslims calling themselves apes" clearly shows you don't think any Jew, Arabs or Muslims would accept of evolution.

Saying so with such ease makes them Darwinist apes and not Christians.

Incorrect. Darwinist apes and Christians are not mutually exclusive.

You obviously think you are a clever ape but lack any ape's intellectual ability to prove that you are an ape.

Incorrect. No only do I have that ability, I've also demostrated said ability not two posts ago.

Real apes neither think nor know that they are apes or would ever classify you or themslevs as ape.

Incorrect. Some real apes can infact think and know they are apes and as such classify themselves so.

Classification is a human enterprise alone and one of the God-given powers humans have been endowed with in order to be able to name and differentiate between things.

Sure, if you believe that, that just means that classification is an enterprise some apes are capable of and that God has endowed some apes with the power to name and differentiate between things.

Animals have no human knowledge.

Incorrect, some animals, namely human, have human knowledge.

Obviously. You are not even a very clever human since you don't seem to be able to differentiate between humans and apes and think you are a member of some Ape Family.

I am impressed that it took you so long to dish out a direct insult. Can't say I am disappointed thought.

You are wrong though about my ability to differentiate bwtween humans and apes. I made the same point before: Just because I think cars are vehicles, doesn't mean I think the the terms are indistinguishable; being fully a car doesn't stop it from being a vehicle, being fully a vehicle doesn't stop it being a car.

Don't tell me that you are nesting with apes! You haven't been hanging out on your Ape Family tree with any bononos, I hope.

I wouldn't call it nesting. I do share my home with another ape, but not a bonobo.

Demonstrate it in English for our English-speaking friends, if you don't mind.

Not at all. But I do mind repeating myself unnecessarily. Look at the previous demonstration I've already provided, it was in English.

A rather weak demonstration of your being an ape and more of a demonstration of Latin logic.

You did ask for a proof. I can list you some features that humans have which are unique to great apes if you like.

There are no Jews, Arabs or Muslims on the forum who will say they or any other Jew, Arab or Muslim are apes. Ape is a derogatory term when applied to Jews, Arabs and Muslims. Didn't you know that?

Well you've mention it before, and I do accept that some people do use "ape" (and "animal") as a derogatory term. But that's irrelevent since we are talking science.

No doubt you can, but none of these Arab and Jewish evolution supporters in the biology departments of Middle Eastern/Israeli universities would dare say that any other Jew, Arab or Muslim outside of their biology department is an ape.

That says a lot about the people who reject evolution, using fear to control what people "would dare say."

Can you quote one?

Would this do? This is from a researcher in Islamic studies who is also an imam: "Doesn't evolution denigrate and insult all humans, but especially the prophets of God, by insisting that we all originate from apes? I reply that the theory doesn't insult anyone, but does remind us of the humble origins of our created form." You can read his whole article here.

So how can it be rational to see yourself as an ape if it is abnormal?

Why not? There is no causal link between normality and rationality. I can name you a number of things that is normal (such as common logical fallacies) and yet irrational, and things that is abnormal (such as the counter-intuitiveness of game theory) and yet rational.

Are you a psychobiologist?

No.

[Boots]

and these last, what, dozen pages of The Great Ape Debate are a perfect example of the reason why defining terms in a debate is so important. Ned is hung up on the definition of "ape," and no one he is communicating with agrees with that definition. As such we have mind-numbing pages of back-and-forth where Ned and everyone he's discoursing with are talking past each other.

If everyone involved cannot agree on the definition of "ape" then the discussion is completely pointless, as the last dozen pages have proven.

[Clownboat]

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

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

Observation is only the first step of the scientific method, and since everyone makes observations, observations alone do not constitute science unless you want to define science as simply observing something. Is that definition of science acceptable to you?

theoies starts out as hypothesis. Humans being ape is not a theory but an observation.

The only apes that can be observed in Europe, North, Central or South America are caged in zoos and are clearly not human. Humans may be locked up in jails or prisons but not zoos. Zoos are for humans to observe caged animals. If humans were animals they could be locked up in zoo cages.
Wild apes can only be observed in Asia and Africa. Saying that Asians and Africans are apes means that Asians and Africans can be locked up in zoos. Saying that African or African-American people are apes only reinforces the belief that they are apes.

Although such grotesque characterizations of African Americans have largely disappeared from mainstream U.S. society, Eberhardt noted that science education could be partly responsible for reinforcing the view that blacks are less evolved than whites. An iconic 1970 illustration, March of Progress, published in the Time-Life book Early Man, depicts evolution beginning with a chimpanzee and ending with a white man. Its a legacy of our past that the endpoint of evolution is a white man, Eberhardt said. I dont think its intentional, but when people learn about human evolution, they walk away with a notion that people of African descent are closer to apes than people of European descent. When people think of a civilized person, a white man comes to mind.
Read more at http://scienceblog.com/15428/americans- ... UE35AFX.99

So no American can be be observed to be an ape. Americans can observe apes in zoos, and caged apes in zoos can observe the Americans observing them, but the observation of Africans and African-Americans only reinforces the notion that black American are apes.

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.

In post 1171, you asked: "Why do you keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution?"
In post 1176, I said: "I don't. I don't say that all Jews reject evolution either, so you are making a false claim."
The false claim you made was that I "keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution."
Nothing to do with "apes" or "any," despite your manipulation and misrepresentation of the evidence.

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.

Saying so with such ease makes them Darwinist apes and not Christians.

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.

You obviously think you are a clever ape but lack any ape's intellectual ability to prove that you are an ape. Real apes neither think nor know that they are apes or would ever classify you or themslevs as ape. Classification is a human enterprise alone and one of the God-given powers humans have been endowed with in order to be able to name and differentiate between things. Animals have no human knowledge.

Some apes are not as clever as others.

Obviously. You are not even a very clever human since you don't seem to be able to differentiate between humans and apes and think you are a member of some Ape Family.

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?

Don't tell me that you are nesting with apes! You haven't been hanging out on your Ape Family tree with any bononos, I hope.

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

Demonstrate it in English for our English-speaking friends, if you don't mind.

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

A rather weak demonstration of your being an ape and more of a demonstration of Latin logic.

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?

There are no Jews, Arabs or Muslims on the forum who will say they or any other Jew, Arab or Muslim are apes. Ape is a derogatory term when applied to Jews, Arabs and Muslims. Didn't you know that?

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.

No doubt you can, but none of these Arab and Jewish evolution supporters in the biology departments of Middle Eastern/Israeli universities would dare say that any other Jew, Arab or Muslim outside of their biology department is an ape. Can you quote one?

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.

So how can it be rational to see yourself as an ape if it is abnormal? Are you a psychobiologist?

As far as some Islamic views on evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution
- In the 13th century, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi explains how the elements evolved into minerals, then plants, then animals, and then humans. Tusi then goes on to explain how hereditary variability was an important factor for biological evolution of living things:[16]
- Tusi then explains how humans evolved from advanced animals:[16]
"Such humans [probably anthropoid apes] live in the Western Sudan and other distant corners of the world.

- This is what Ibn Maskawayh states and this is precisely what is written in the Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa. The Muslim thinkers state that ape then evolved into a lower kind of a barbarian man.

- Another prominent and controversial Islamic Scholar, Ghulam Ahmad Pervez holds and defends the view that there is no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and Quran's numerous references to the emergence of life in the universe.

- Evolutionary biology is included in the high-school curricula of most Muslim countries. Science foundations of 14 Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt, recently signed a statement by the Interacademy Panel (IAP, a global network of science academies), in support of the teaching of evolution, including human evolution.

Do you not tire of being wrong all the time?

If you were not indoctrinated into Christianity, it would be much easier to view the information without such a bias, but that is your burden to overcome. It took me many many years, but I was able to do it. Keep your chin up.

[Brian Of Nazareth]

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

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

Observation is only the first step of the scientific method, and since everyone makes observations, observations alone do not constitute science unless you want to define science as simply observing something. Is that definition of science acceptable to you?

If you don't observe something, it can't be measure or quantified in order to produce a testable hypothesis. Hence it is indeed the cornerstone of science. I wasn't aware that Bust Nak had explicitly stated observation was the ONLY step in science and it is disingeneous of you to claim otherwise.

theoies starts out as hypothesis. Humans being ape is not a theory but an observation.

The only apes that can be observed in Europe, North, Central or South America are caged in zoos and are clearly not human. Humans may be locked up in jails or prisons but not zoos. Zoos are for humans to observe caged animals. If humans were animals they could be locked up in zoo cages.
Wild apes can only be observed in Asia and Africa. Saying that Asians and Africans are apes means that Asians and Africans can be locked up in zoos. Saying that African or African-American people are apes only reinforces the belief that they are apes.

In your opinion. Humans belong to the Hominidae, often referred to as the great apes. No, we don't closely resemble the other surviving apes as we are the only extant member of the genus Homo, Homo sapiens sapiens. If that offends your sensibility that you are 'made in gods image' that is your problem, and one that many other religious people of every denomination have been able to accept by takeng creation as allegory rather than literal.

Although such grotesque characterizations of African Americans have largely disappeared from mainstream U.S. society, Eberhardt noted that science education could be partly responsible for reinforcing the view that blacks are less evolved than whites. An iconic 1970 illustration, March of Progress, published in the Time-Life book Early Man, depicts evolution beginning with a chimpanzee and ending with a white man. Its a legacy of our past that the endpoint of evolution is a white man, Eberhardt said. I dont think its intentional, but when people learn about human evolution, they walk away with a notion that people of African descent are closer to apes than people of European descent. When people think of a civilized person, a white man comes to mind.
Read more at http://scienceblog.com/15428/americans- ... UE35AFX.99

So no American can be be observed to be an ape. Americans can observe apes in zoos, and caged apes in zoos can observe the Americans observing them, but the observation of Africans and African-Americans only reinforces the notion that black American are apes.

You seem to be wilfully miscontruing a fairly obvious point. America was a racist hole for much of the last century and it was a common slur to refer to african americans as monkeys by way of racial slur. Thankfully the human genome project and other evolution based science has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that all extant members of the homo genus are of the homo sapiens sapiens subspecies.

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.

In post 1171, you asked: "Why do you keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution?"
In post 1176, I said: "I don't. I don't say that all Jews reject evolution either, so you are making a false claim."
The false claim you made was that I "keep insisting all Arabs and Muslims reject evolution."
Nothing to do with "apes" or "any," despite your manipulation and misrepresentation of the evidence.

I suspect most people would claim to be human, and by majority consensus in the scientific community that definition places them in the Hominidae group collectively known as the great apes.

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.

Saying so with such ease makes them Darwinist apes and not Christians.

No, it simply means they aren't literalists and accept the bible as errant. Or is your little corner of Christianity the only true path?

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.

You obviously think you are a clever ape but lack any ape's intellectual ability to prove that you are an ape. Real apes neither think nor know that they are apes or would ever classify you or themslevs as ape. Classification is a human enterprise alone and one of the God-given powers humans have been endowed with in order to be able to name and differentiate between things. Animals have no human knowledge.

So apes are apes because humans say they are apes? Classification by types is known as taxonomy and Ozgirl and yourself have been having pops at it in this thread. The 95% of scientists that aren't on the bats-arse lunatic fringe lump you in the same taxon of other primates, I'm afraid you'll have to learn to deal with it.

Some apes are not as clever as others.

Obviously. You are not even a very clever human since you don't seem to be able to differentiate between humans and apes and think you are a member of some Ape Family.

Ouch, an argument from credulity.

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?

Don't tell me that you are nesting with apes! You haven't been hanging out on your Ape Family tree with any bononos, I hope.

I daresay they would be more entertaining company than a creationist.

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

Demonstrate it in English for our English-speaking friends, if you don't mind.

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

A rather weak demonstration of your being an ape and more of a demonstration of Latin logic.

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?

There are no Jews, Arabs or Muslims on the forum who will say they or any other Jew, Arab or Muslim are apes. Ape is a derogatory term when applied to Jews, Arabs and Muslims. Didn't you know that?

It is offensive when offered up as a racial epihet but it loses much of its bile when you accept you are merely stating they are human.

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.

No doubt you can, but none of these Arab and Jewish evolution supporters in the biology departments of Middle Eastern/Israeli universities would dare say that any other Jew, Arab or Muslim outside of their biology department is an ape. Can you quote one?

By definition any 'evolutionist' supporting the consensus view will almost certainly accept the taxon Hominidae. It will no doubt be easier for you to find a peer reviewed academic that supports evolution yet does not accept that humans are a part of the great ape grouping.

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.

So how can it be rational to see yourself as an ape if it is abnormal? Are you a psychobiologist?

Seeing yourself as human isn't abnormal. Seeing yourself as the centre of creation and assuming the universe and all it contains was made for your benefit may well be.

[Ozgirl]

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!

Oh Ned, these poor misguided evolutionists will never accept the factual information that is obvious after over 150 years of absurdity.

Apart from some loose comment from Clownboat, no evolutionist wishes to address this information. That would be because they cannot refute it. My above summation is a true reflection of the lack of credibility and veracity behind evolutionary claims. Homology is a biased pick a box philosophy reflecting flavour of the month.

Like I said, and as we can all see, these evolutionists have no choice but to chase their tails around in circles arguing what does or does not belong to hominidae, an arbitrary rank that has 'evolved' itself.

What they cannot do is produce any substantive reason as to why any one should accept this rhetoric and biased nonsense as empirical data.

The other thing I like is all the twoddle about the fanciful human chromosome 2 fusion of chimp 2a and 2b chromosome and all the woffle that supports it.

As I have demonstrated above by the words of an evolutionary researcher, evolutionists have difficulty in undertstanding what similar, let alone the same actually means. 'Similar' and 'the same' in evolutionary speak really means "ignore any dissimilarity and focus on other small bits of dna that have indels (insertions & deletions), duplications, recombinations, relocations and then call that similar". Even after ignoring all the differences these evos will still claim as little as a 40% match as 'the same'. It is a hoot!!!

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

Here is a good summary of the similarity fiasco..

http://creation.mobi/human-chimp-dna-si ... -evaluated

The myth of 1% as spoken to by evolutionary researchers....

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biolo ... s/1836.pdf


Likewise, there is no justification at all to the claim that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of chimp genes 2a & 2b. This link sums it up nicely with the evolutionary research used to support their claims being cited.

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1

Here is snip from one...

Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. Sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now interstitially located in 2q13-2q14.1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421751

Then on they go to explain why what is not the same still is the same. It is all biased and assumptive rhetoric. It is all for believers in the TOE philosophy to believe. It is not empirical data.


"Other problems with the fusion theory include the fact that standard cytogenetic techniques, such as C-banding, have detected significantly less heterochromatic centromeric DNA on the long arm of human chromosome 2 than predicted by the fusion model. Evolutionists claim this is because the bulk of the centromeric repetitive DNA has been lost.13 Conversely, it is more likely that the so-called cryptic centromeric DNA never existed."

"Mutations of the magnitude needed to support a fusion event pose serious cytogenetic problems both for the organism during regular somatic cell growth related to mitosis and during the meiotic events occurring in the germ-line tissues. Proper alignment requires the near-identical structure of each pair so that each chromosome aligns only with its sister chromosome. Chromosomal fusion is one major common cause of infertility. If meiosis does occur despite the aberration, the embryo produced from fertilization of these gametes typically self-aborts."

The best evidence that mankind has no relation to any other ape and the best differentiation between an ape and man is the difference in chromosome count. I say this because a child can differentiate a human out of any bunch of apes but adult evolutionists are unable to. That is what evolutionary science does to ones mind.


Evolutionists had to scurry off when they found this difference in chromosome count and explain it in evolutionary terms. To do this they had to put their evogoggles on, ignore any difference, find 2 chimp chromosome that likely have nothing to do with the human ch2, and come up with some good story telling to explain why some humans do not carry 48 chromosomes and why they are disimilar. They pretend to see 2 centromeres, they pretend much. Of course some apes have different chomosome counts, but none have 46 like mankind. This to me demonstrates that a variety of apes were created prior to man.

From here evolutionists can only go around in cirlces and offer more and more biased nonsense, excuses and unsubstantiated stories that mean absolutely nothing more than they have to make it look like it all evolved. They do not have credible genomic evidence and they do not have fossil evidence to back their claims. It is truely a waste of time debating evolutionists. If I leave the forum for another week they will still be tail chasing when I come back.

[Nilloc James]

and these last, what, dozen pages of The Great Ape Debate are a perfect example of the reason why defining terms in a debate is so important. Ned is hung up on the definition of "ape," and no one he is communicating with agrees with that definition. As such we have mind-numbing pages of back-and-forth where Ned and everyone he's discoursing with are talking past each other.

If everyone involved cannot agree on the definition of "ape" then the discussion is completely pointless, as the last dozen pages have proven.

Great ape is synonomous with homindae the group containing chimpanzees, gorillas, and hominids.

[Neandertal Ned]

All humans are members of the great ape family, there is nothing to demonstrate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

When Wiki publically states that Prophet Muhammed was an ape and that all Jews, Arabs, Muslims and Christians are also apes, then I shall accept your ludicrous claim that you are an ape too! Till then, just saying that all humans are apes is simply dogmatic rhetoric to those of us who are not apes.

[Neandertal Ned]

Do you not tire of being wrong all the time?

If you were not indoctrinated into Christianity, it would be much easier to view the information without such a bias, but that is your burden to overcome. It took me many many years, but I was able to do it. Keep your chin up.

In addition to keeping my Christian chin up I shall keep a sharp Christian eye on what is happening in the world of modern Islam since the views of many Muslims today seem to be evolving!

http://www.iheu.org/node/2794