The Theory of Evolution

[☭proletarian☭]

the sun was present, as I have said before....in Genesis, the first proverbial Day, there ''was light and the light was good''....

Sop that's not supposed to be the big bang? What, then is the greater light that was hung in the sky later on?

When the proto planet Thea hit the side of the earth and spun off in to the moon, about 300 million years after the Earth was formed.

You've been studying Sumerian and Babylonian m,ythology; that story didn't make it into the Jewish version

oh, and we are not apes, we are hominids....you need to study the latest...
care

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans.[1]

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Care4all]

And you believed that all happened in seven days and that woman was created from the rib of man?

There is nothing inherent to evolutionary theory that states either of those. I understand the Christian apologist movement's need to intellectualize Genesis to fit with the overwhelming scientific data that is evolutionary theory, but your statement is a little bit of stretch.

I don't have a problem with Christian Apologetics either. I really enjoy reading C.S. Lewis.

no, i don't believe for one nano second that this happened in seven, 24 hour days! I thought i was clear by using the term, ''proverbial'' before the word day...at least in my later post?

Your post was a little bit confusing. I get the "to God, one day is as a million years and a million years is as one day." thing, which implies that there is no time to God.

However, to hack a famous (and now debunked) evolutionary quote, to imply that:

Evolutionary theory recapitulates the book of Genesis, is somewhat of a stretch. At least IMO.

I think at best, the Christian apologist movement acknowledges that genesis (or at least the creation story of Genesis) is a collection of myths that early man created to explain the origin of species, but that doesn't even begin to resemble evolutionary theory.

For decades I thought as you said above, but within the last year, after digging in to the science of the Planet Earth and how the Earth was made and the how the Universe was created and compared them NOW to what was written in Genesis chapter 1, I do believe that neither science or Genesis 1, conflict with eachother....as I once did....first I learned the sequence of what Science is theorizing and then i went to genesis 1 and reread it, and nothing or near nothing conflicts. And yes, of course I could be somehow projecting such from my own personal beliefs or what i was reared to believe, but honestly, I don't believe this is what I am doing...I see that in Genesis 1.... this very very generic explanation of our beginnings, matches up to what we now have scientifically proved or theorized to be be true.

Genesis 2, I can not say this about yet....because I have not really studied this yet, where it says it created woman out of man....i have problems there, because in Genesis 1 God said he created man, both male and female....so it could imply that man and women were created at the same time in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 says that woman came out of man....

Well, scientifically....BOTH can be correct.... Where in Genesis 1, it says God created HIM both male and female....and we KNOW that only the Male is created both male and female....the male carries BOTH the X and the Y chromosome that determines gender, while the Female DOES NOT....she only carries the X gender chromosome...don't you find this astonishing? That the 2, science and the Bible match up and makes the Bible's stories or myths a possibility?

Genetically, MALES can not come out of females without another male carrying the X and the Y, but the female COULD have come out of the male...being that he is both male and female genetically speaking with the X and the Y chromosome.

Now I do not believe that females were made from man's rib...I believe this is metaphor or the simplest of terms explaining it to the simplest of people at the time it was written.

I don't know how that evolution took place, I will WAIT for Scientists to hypothesize or theorize on how this happened or if it really happened but I'll bet ya a gentleman's bet, that Science will end up saying that males came first, no matter the species, and females came afterwards....and as it stands now, with males carrying both the male chromosome for gender and the female chromosome as well...that humans and other species evolved, from males....

care

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Genetically, MALES can not come out of females without another male carrying the X and the Y, but the female COULD have come out of the male..

?!

Would he give birth through his anus? Are you saying women are shit?

Research published in [oct, 2009] Science reveals that the Y chromosome developed from an X-like ancestor around 300 million years ago.

News in Science - The origin of sex chromosomes - 29/10/1999

.being that he is both male and female genetically speaking with the X and the Y chromosome.

Wrong again. To be genetically female in mammals means to have to (or more) X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes. You need to study more.

I don't know how that evolution took place, I will WAIT for Scientist to hypothesize or theorize on how this happened

The leading theory is that past evolution mirrors the phylogenetic tree.

 

[Care4all]

Genetically, MALES can not come out of females without another male carrying the X and the Y, but the female COULD have come out of the male..

?!


Would he give birth through his anus? Are you saying women are shit?

Do you think that only one man and one woman were developed in the beginning and them having sex and the woman developing the child in womb is the ONLY way that we could have begun? Do you believe in the Adam and Eve story? Is this what you are implying? And the same with all animals, both male and female animals as well?

Research published in [oct, 2009] Science reveals that the Y chromosome developed from an X-like ancestor around 300 million years ago.

News in Science - The origin of sex chromosomes - 29/10/1999

Thank you for this article, as I said, I had not done any research on such, as of yet. Yu will see that in the article, science now STATES that both the female and male chromosomes were created at the SAME time, 300 million years ago...

Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have found that the X and Y chromosomes evolved from a standard identical pair around 300 million years ago - shortly after the divergence of the evolutionary lines leading to mammals and birds.

"The first events that created the sex chromosomes had been thought to have occurred at least 170 million years ago," says researcher Dr David Page. "We're pushing that back another 100 million years or so."

This goes in line with Genesis 1, where man was created both male and female, no?

.being that he is both male and female genetically speaking with the X and the Y chromosome.

Wrong again. To be genetically female in mammals means to have to (or more) X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes. You need to study more.

Yes, it takes 2 X chromosomes for the female to bear a female, as I said. And it takes an X and a Y to form a male....so the male caries the X along with their male Y, (XY) but the female ONLY carries the X, (XX)

I don't know how that evolution took place, I will WAIT for Scientist to hypothesize or theorize on how this happened

The leading theory is that past evolution mirrors the phylogenetic tree.

or the phylogenetic tree (the tree of life) mirrors past evolution...

 

[Care4all]

the sun was present, as I have said before....in Genesis, the first proverbial Day, there ''was light and the light was good''....

Sop that's not supposed to be the big bang? What, then is the greater light that was hung in the sky later on?

The greater light was the sun, and hung means affixed....we and our other planets FINALLY became affixed or hung in the positions we are in now. With us, the Moon's gravitational pull or push...affixed us in to a position that is third rock from the sun, the perfect position, with the perfect temperature, and radical tides, to form complex life....if the moon had not formed from this collision that took place, NONE of us would be here today.

When the proto planet Thea hit the side of the earth and spun off in to the moon, about 300 million years after the Earth was formed.

You've been studying Sumerian and Babylonian m,ythology; that story didn't make it into the Jewish version

NOPE, haven't gotten in to Sumerian or Babylonian mythology yet, but I would like to...

oh, and we are not apes, we are hominids....you need to study the latest...
care

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans.[1]

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, you got me on that one.... It seems a bit more ridiculous seeing it in writing, where 3 different types of apes came from this hominid and only one human, in the evolution of things..... why not 3 different humans with one ape form coming out of the great ape? Too strange to be true imho and we will see once again that science will REVISE its theories on this...

 

[geauxtohell]

For decades I thought as you said above, but within the last year, after digging in to the science of the Planet Earth and how the Earth was made and the how the Universe was created and compared them NOW to what was written in Genesis chapter 1, I do believe that neither science or Genesis 1, conflict with eachother....as I once did....first I learned the sequence of what Science is theorizing and then i went to genesis 1 and reread it, and nothing or near nothing conflicts. And yes, of course I could be somehow projecting such from my own personal beliefs or what i was reared to believe, but honestly, I don't believe this is what I am doing...I see that in Genesis 1.... this very very generic explanation of our beginnings, matches up to what we now have scientifically proved or theorized to be be true.

I won't begrudge you your opinion. To further debate it goes into the larger philosophical issues. More specifically, why would the book of genesis give a mythological version of events (i.e. a 7 day creation) as opposed to what actually happened?

I've heard all apologist theories ("because man was incapable of understanding evolution thousands of years ago), but I still don't see why, if we accept that there is a God and he created everything through evolution, why Genesis wouldn't more proximately resemble that as opposed to what is actually in it.

Genesis 2, I can not say this about yet....because I have not really studied this yet, where it says it created woman out of man....i have problems there, because in Genesis 1 God said he created man, both male and female....so it could imply that man and women were created at the same time in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 says that woman came out of man....

Well, scientifically....BOTH can be correct.... Where in Genesis 1, it says God created HIM both male and female....and we KNOW that only the Male is created both male and female....the male carries BOTH the X and the Y chromosome that determines gender, while the Female DOES NOT....she only carries the X gender chromosome...don't you find this astonishing? That the 2, science and the Bible match up and makes the Bible's stories or myths a possibility?

Genetically, MALES can not come out of females without another male carrying the X and the Y, but the female COULD have come out of the male...being that he is both male and female genetically speaking with the X and the Y chromosome.

Now I do not believe that females were made from man's rib...I believe this is metaphor or the simplest of terms explaining it to the simplest of people at the time it was written.

I don't know how that evolution took place, I will WAIT for Scientists to hypothesize or theorize on how this happened or if it really happened but I'll bet ya a gentleman's bet, that Science will end up saying that males came first, no matter the species, and females came afterwards....and as it stands now, with males carrying both the male chromosome for gender and the female chromosome as well...that humans and other species evolved, from males....

care

Genetically, there are problems with this notion. First off, the default pathway in human reproduction is female. It is perfectly plausible for a person to genotypically be 46XY and phenotypically female. This occurs when there is a mutation on the SRY region of the Y chromosome (Swyer Syndrome). Furthermore, a person who is 45X0 is also female (Turner Syndrome). Of course the opposite can occur too. There can be 46 XX males when the SRY gene has been transposed upon an X chromosome.

Of all the chromosomes in the genotype, the Y chromosome is the least robust and has the least amount of base pairs.

Embryologically, fetuses start out as female, until the SRY gene is activated and causes female tissue to go through apoptosis and male tissue to start developing out of the existing female tissue. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but every part of the female reproductive anatomy has a male counterpart. The male counterparts developed from the pre-existing female parts. They didn't develop spontaneously (i.e. testes started out as ovaries, which is why germ cell tumors in males and females are so similar).

the male carries BOTH the X and the Y chromosome that determines gender, while the Female DOES NOT....she only carries the X gender chromosome...don't you find this astonishing? That the 2, science and the Bible match up and makes the Bible's stories or myths a possibility?

I don't find it particularly astonishing once you consider the process of meiosis. Since females (barring any of the above abnormalities) don't carry any Y chromosomes in any cells in their bodies, it makes sense that they could only donate a haploid cell with an X chromosome. Thus, males determine gender through shear chance when their XY diploid gametes undergo division to make a 1 haploid sperm with an X and one with a Y. Thus, out of one diploid gamete, you get two haploid gametes. Thus the female has a roughly 50/50 shot of matching her oocyte with an X chromosome with another X or a Y. Which explains why gender prevalence worldwide and throughout history is roughly 50/50 males and females.

As for if man or women game first, I wouldn't take that wager at at all. I would assume that something as complex as the mammalian system of determining sex was determined long before their were homosapiens.

Male and female homosapiens would have had to evolve alongside of each other, or else it would have been a genetic dead end if either one had evolved first.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ok, you got me on that one.... It seems a bit more ridiculous seeing it in writing, where 3 different types of apes came from this hominid and only one human, in the evolution of things..... why not 3 different humans with one ape form coming out of the great ape? Too strange to be true imho and we will see once again that science will REVISE its theories on this...

Which assumes evolution is directional and occurs with a distinct end in mind. It is not. In fact, mutations that are not immediately deleterious are neither good nor bad on their own. They become good or bad based on the environment in which the species evolves and if they confer an advantage to the species.

For example, penguins have evolved a complex retrograde blood circulation system that allows them to stay warm in the artic.

If you took a penguin and placed them in the equator, they'd be screwed.

Within humans, you can find a jillion design flaws and other genetic flaws that can occur. They confer no real advantage, and the age old question is; why would an intelligent designer create a design with so many flaws?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It seems a bit more ridiculous seeing it in writing, where 3 different types of apes came from this hominid and only one human, in the evolution of things..... why not 3 different humans with one ape form coming out of the great ape? /QUOTE]

What're you babbling about? H. Sapiens Sapiens used to live side by side with at least one other very human-like species.

 

[Care4all]

For decades I thought as you said above, but within the last year, after digging in to the science of the Planet Earth and how the Earth was made and the how the Universe was created and compared them NOW to what was written in Genesis chapter 1, I do believe that neither science or Genesis 1, conflict with eachother....as I once did....first I learned the sequence of what Science is theorizing and then i went to genesis 1 and reread it, and nothing or near nothing conflicts. And yes, of course I could be somehow projecting such from my own personal beliefs or what i was reared to believe, but honestly, I don't believe this is what I am doing...I see that in Genesis 1.... this very very generic explanation of our beginnings, matches up to what we now have scientifically proved or theorized to be be true.

I won't begrudge you your opinion. To further debate it goes into the larger philosophical issues. More specifically, why would the book of genesis give a mythological version of events (i.e. a 7 day creation) as opposed to what actually happened?

I've heard all apologist theories ("because man was incapable of understanding evolution thousands of years ago), but I still don't see why, if we accept that there is a God and he created everything through evolution, why Genesis wouldn't more proximately resemble that as opposed to what is actually in it.

Genesis 2, I can not say this about yet....because I have not really studied this yet, where it says it created woman out of man....i have problems there, because in Genesis 1 God said he created man, both male and female....so it could imply that man and women were created at the same time in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 says that woman came out of man....

Well, scientifically....BOTH can be correct.... Where in Genesis 1, it says God created HIM both male and female....and we KNOW that only the Male is created both male and female....the male carries BOTH the X and the Y chromosome that determines gender, while the Female DOES NOT....she only carries the X gender chromosome...don't you find this astonishing? That the 2, science and the Bible match up and makes the Bible's stories or myths a possibility?

Genetically, MALES can not come out of females without another male carrying the X and the Y, but the female COULD have come out of the male...being that he is both male and female genetically speaking with the X and the Y chromosome.

Now I do not believe that females were made from man's rib...I believe this is metaphor or the simplest of terms explaining it to the simplest of people at the time it was written.

I don't know how that evolution took place, I will WAIT for Scientists to hypothesize or theorize on how this happened or if it really happened but I'll bet ya a gentleman's bet, that Science will end up saying that males came first, no matter the species, and females came afterwards....and as it stands now, with males carrying both the male chromosome for gender and the female chromosome as well...that humans and other species evolved, from males....

care

Genetically, there are problems with this notion. First off, the default pathway in human reproduction is female. It is perfectly plausible for a person to genotypically be 46XY and phenotypically female. This occurs when there is a mutation on the SRY region of the Y chromosome (Swyer Syndrome). Furthermore, a person who is 45X0 is also female (Turner Syndrome). Of course the opposite can occur too. There can be 46 XX males when the SRY gene has been transposed upon an X chromosome.

Of all the chromosomes in the genotype, the Y chromosome is the least robust and has the least amount of base pairs.

the male carries BOTH the X and the Y chromosome that determines gender, while the Female DOES NOT....she only carries the X gender chromosome...don't you find this astonishing? That the 2, science and the Bible match up and makes the Bible's stories or myths a possibility?

I don't find it particularly astonishing once you consider the process of meiosis. Since females (barring any of the above abnormalities) don't carry any Y chromosomes in any cells in their bodies, it makes sense that they could only donate a haploid cell with an X chromosome. Thus, males determine gender through shear chance when their XY diploid gametes undergo division to make a 1 haploid sperm with an X and one with a Y. Thus, out of one diploid gamete, you get two haploid gametes. Thus the female has a roughly 50/50 shot of matching her oocyte with an X chromosome with another X or a Y. Which explains why gender prevalence worldwide and throughout history is roughly 50/50 males and females.

As for if man or women game first, I wouldn't take that wager at at all. I would assume that something as complex as the mammalian system of determining sex was determined long before their were homosapiens.

Male and female homosapiens would have had to evolve alongside of each other, or else it would have been a genetic dead end if either one had evolved first.

yes, this is true, so that goes back to Genesis 1 being correct, we were created both male and female and in genesis 2, where females came out of males means something else...don't know what yet, but myths have it that Eve was not the original female, someone named Lilith was....maybe these myths have more to them than one may think?

Thanks for being understanding of my opinion or my speculations, even though you don't think they are realistic!

as far as your other question on why Genesis 1 was not written as a science book, but in the simplest of terms, and in only one chapter with 6 steps (days)...it is because the people of the time would not have understood such, and there WAS NO NEED for them to understand the finite details of evolution....the generic story was good enough, it served its purpose, the Bible was NOT a science book and never was created to be a science book,( if they even had science or if Science was even prevalent at the time.) From my understanding, most people did not even read or write at the time these books of the Bible were written....the Science of our creation was not necessary to convince these people that God existed I suppose?


Care

 

[☭proletarian☭]

so that goes back to Genesis 1 being correct, we were created both male and female and in genesis 2, where females came out of males means something else..

Damn, you change your story a lot.

as far as your other question on why Genesis 1 was not written as a science book, but in the simplest of terms, and in only one chapter with 6 steps (days)...it is because the people of the time would not have understood such,

Because we evolved to be smarter in the last 6000 years? None of us were born knowing anything about modern science. We all learned as children. Your argument is bullshit.

the Bible was NOT a science book and never was created to be a science book

So why do you want us to respect it like a science book?

 

[geauxtohell]

yes, this is true, so that goes back to Genesis 1 being correct, we were created both male and female and in genesis 2, where females came out of males means something else...don't know what yet, but myths have it that Eve was not the original female, someone named Lilith was....maybe these myths have more to them than one may think?

Thanks for being understanding of my opinion or my speculations, even though you don't think they are realistic!

as far as your other question on why Genesis 1 was not written as a science book, but in the simplest of terms, and in only one chapter with 6 steps (days)...it is because the people of the time would not have understood such, and there WAS NO NEED for them to understand the finite details of evolution....the generic story was good enough, it served its purpose, the Bible was NOT a science book and never was created to be a science book,( if they even had science or if Science was even prevalent at the time.) From my understanding, most people did not even read or write at the time these books of the Bible were written....the Science of our creation was not necessary to convince these people that God existed I suppose?


Care

No problem. As I said earlier, I don't mind discussing this issue with people who might have a different opinion, as long as they are honest dealers. Many other people on this thread have been less than forthcoming about their motives for being opposed to evolution (though they are completely transparent) and demand you produce a mountain peer-reviewed evidence (which they dismiss) while supporting none to buoy their claims (if they have any).

I have no problem at all with people stating they believe what they believe as an article of faith or a hunch.

To further address your post, I don't believe the first woman was Eve or Lilith or anyone in the "Garden Of Eden". You might have missed it in the post you quoted, because I edited it (probably as you were responding to it), but all fetuses start out as women. Once the SRY gene is turned on, the female anatomy develops into male anatomy through hormone cascades. If you use your imagination, you can see that all parts of the Male and female anatomy are analogous to another part. Though, you ladies are lucky in that you get to keep your ovaries in your body wall (where they can't be kicked) while we have to stick ours in a scrotum. I guess that's the price you pay for requiring a cooler environment to synthesize sperm.

At any rate, it flies in the notion that men developed first, because to be a man, you had to start out as a woman.

A notion that would shock most men if they knew it.

 

[Care4all]

It seems a bit more ridiculous seeing it in writing, where 3 different types of apes came from this hominid and only one human, in the evolution of things..... why not 3 different humans with one ape form coming out of the great ape? /QUOTE]

What're you babbling about? H. Sapiens Sapiens used to live side by side with at least one other very human-like species.

proletarian's link says that 4 genera came out of the original ancestor, the hominidae:

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans.[1]

So I am saying that if 3 of those 4 Genera are ape like creatures...the chimp, the orangutan and gorillas, and only one is human....THAT this seems strange, unrealistic that humans would come out of a creature that evolved in to 3 different types of ape like creatures, yet somehow, it managed to also evolve in to only one human like creature? Are apes or apelike animals more dominant than humans or maybe as you said, the conditions and environment during the time of these evolutionary changes that took place with our ancestors not favor humans?

 

[Care4all]

so that goes back to Genesis 1 being correct, we were created both male and female and in genesis 2, where females came out of males means something else..

Damn, you change your story a lot.

as far as your other question on why Genesis 1 was not written as a science book, but in the simplest of terms, and in only one chapter with 6 steps (days)...it is because the people of the time would not have understood such,

Because we evolved to be smarter in the last 6000 years? None of us were born knowing anything about modern science. We all learned as children. Your argument is bullshit.

the Bible was NOT a science book and never was created to be a science book

So why do you want us to respect it like a science book?

Who said i wanted you to respect it as if it were a Science book? I call bullcrap on that bullshit of an assumption of yours....

I don't really care what you or others think...you have your own freewill to do or think as you please.... and so do I for that matter!

 

[antagon]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

I promise you that your "scientific" answer is going to be the same thing they've been babbling all along: I can't believe you're stupid enough to ask, all smart people believe in evolution, if you have to ask for proof, you're stupid and your mind is made up, so I'm not going to bother, I only cite my "proof" to people who agree with me.

scientific method doesnt work with proof so much as disproof. evolution will remain a theory, even if we were able to demonstrate speciation on one instance, as it proposes merely a mechanism.

for the doubter, the ball is in your court to propose an idea based on observations of nature. for millions of people, admittedly some better infomed than others, the observations and arguements that support evolution are easily understood. i think you'd have to be pretty dense for them to escape your understanding. systemetizing that shortcoming by not teaching the theory, or teaching it beside a non-scientific theory in a science book is a tragic idea.

the ethics of some religious leaders who choose to promote, well, stupidity as a virtue of christianity is a concern ive got (this is the religion and ethics board).

 

[antagon]

So I am saying that if 3 of those 4 Genera are ape like creatures...the chimp, the orangutan and gorillas, and only one is human....THAT this seems strange, unrealistic that humans would come out of a creature that evolved in to 3 different types of ape like creatures, yet somehow, it managed to also evolve in to only one human like creature? Are apes or apelike animals more dominant than humans or maybe as you said, the conditions and environment during the time of these evolutionary changes that took place with our ancestors not favor humans?

humans are ape-like, hence the classification. have you considered the genetics involved in classifying these creatures when you arrived at 'unrealistic'. understanding evolution will require absorbing some information, not just blurring your vision and scratching your head.

if you prefer a biblical explanation because you dont need to think or learn anything to understand it, why bother to question evolution in the first place?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

all fetuses start out as women. [/quotr]

Not quite. They all start out as pretty much asexual prior to the masculinazation or feminization of the fetus.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

the ethics of some religious leaders who choose to promote, well, stupidity as a virtue of christianity is a concern ive got (this is the religion and ethics board).

 

[Care4all]

So I am saying that if 3 of those 4 Genera are ape like creatures...the chimp, the orangutan and gorillas, and only one is human....THAT this seems strange, unrealistic that humans would come out of a creature that evolved in to 3 different types of ape like creatures, yet somehow, it managed to also evolve in to only one human like creature? Are apes or apelike animals more dominant than humans or maybe as you said, the conditions and environment during the time of these evolutionary changes that took place with our ancestors not favor humans?

humans are ape-like, hence the classification. have you considered the genetics involved in classifying these creatures when you arrived at 'unrealistic'. understanding evolution will require absorbing some information, not just blurring your vision and scratching your head.

if you prefer a biblical explanation because you dont need to think or learn anything to understand it, why bother to question evolution in the first place?

no need for your derogatory comments antagon, is there? Sheesh....you shouldn't let your own frustrations show on your coat sleeve so easily....

Tell me, is a chimpanzee and Orangutan closer to eachother in appearance and behavior than a human and an orangutan? Why play so dumb on this...? It was a simple observation of what scientists are saying is fact or their theory or their hypothesis.... I do not see that humans evolved in the same manner as the other three....just by observation of all 4.... and for you to PRETEND like we all are the same is pretty disingenuous, to say the least and whether I believed in God or not, through observation of this purported hypothesis, as a lover of Science, I would STILL be questioning it....and would sit back and wait and see what they say 10 years from now, when they probably will know more.

When 3 of the 4 genera of descendants of the same ancestor all are apes or have apelike characteristics, but WHOOPS...one of the 4 is completely different and a human....there is solid logic, in questioning the theory or hypothesis.

 

[antagon]

So I am saying that if 3 of those 4 Genera are ape like creatures...the chimp, the orangutan and gorillas, and only one is human....THAT this seems strange, unrealistic that humans would come out of a creature that evolved in to 3 different types of ape like creatures, yet somehow, it managed to also evolve in to only one human like creature? Are apes or apelike animals more dominant than humans or maybe as you said, the conditions and environment during the time of these evolutionary changes that took place with our ancestors not favor humans?

humans are ape-like, hence the classification. have you considered the genetics involved in classifying these creatures when you arrived at 'unrealistic'. understanding evolution will require absorbing some information, not just blurring your vision and scratching your head.

if you prefer a biblical explanation because you dont need to think or learn anything to understand it, why bother to question evolution in the first place?

no need for your derogatory comments antagon, is there? Sheesh....you shouldn't let your own frustrations show on your coat sleeve so easily....

Tell me, is a chimpanzee and Orangutan closer to eachother in appearance and behavior than a human and an orangutan? Why play so dumb on this...? It was a simple observation of what scientists are saying is fact or their theory or their hypothesis.... I do not see that humans evolved in the same manner as the other three....just by observation of all 4.... and for you to PRETEND like we all are the same is pretty disingenuous, to say the least and whether I believed in God or not, through observation of this purported hypothesis, as a lover of Science, I would STILL be questioning it....and would sit back and wait and see what they say 10 years from now, when they probably will know more.

When 3 of the 4 genera of descendants of the same ancestor all are apes or have apelike characteristics, but WHOOPS...one of the 4 is completely different and a human....there is solid logic, in questioning the theory or hypothesis.

ya know, im trying to be polite, but its not a matter of looking at the three critters and the human and saying, 'well look how hairy and look at the thumbs on their feet.' many of the objections that folks having trouble with the basics of evolution get stumped by that.

some dog breeds are considerably different, and they are of the same species.

step into the world of science at least one foot, and the genetics will show that we have just one less chromasome than the other three, and that it its not far-fetched at all to theorize that two of the chromasomes common to apes fused into one. i want to say that it is our #2 chromasome that serves much the same genetic information as two of the other ape's. alas, the last time id actually studied genetics outside a newsweek was 2000, maybe '99.

thats just a bite of the similarites which have compelled biologists to class us together with chimps. there are more considerations that makes us quite different from an orangutan, while justifying our classing in the larger group.

no pretense we are the same, just a convention that we are similar enough to group together.

i could appreciate anyone would want to look into science as a way of explaining our universe, or just out of curiosity, but my point is that it requires looking deeper around every corner. looking deeper into something questionable is what science is all about, not finding something questionable and declaring 'junk'. without that resolve, youre doing the breaststroke on dry land. people may poke fun.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I do not see that humans evolved in the same manner as the other three....just by observation of all 4....

That's funny.

If only there were some science that studied the genome and could trace the history of mutations...