What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[FistyTheBadger]

Thus is the biggest problem I have with organized religion, most want people to stop looking.

The main purpose of religion is to teach moral behavior to a populace, so its failings with specific data does nothing to weaken it other than socially because science has a lot of power right now.

 

[Skeptik]

Pardon me if this has been mentioned already, but does evolution include monkeys becoming man, or has that been ruled in or out by Science?

The notion that man descended from monkeys has never been a part of evolutionary theory. It is something that the Biblical literalists say in order to try to discredit science and keep their cherished belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, which, of course, is pure nonsense.

Man descending from monkeys is also nonsense.

Modern humans evolved from creatures like the ones whose bones are currently being dug up in Africa, creatures now extinct. Our lineage includes a series of creatures of the genus homo that aren't of the species sapiens. Our closest living relatives, biologically speaking, are the chimpanzees, that share about 98% of our genome. That doesn't mean that we descended from chimps, either. Rather, both humans and chimps branched off from the same evolutionary tree around 2 million or so years ago.

 

[Missourian]

The notion that man descended from monkeys has never been a part of evolutionary theory. It is something that the Biblical literalists say in order to try to discredit science and keep their cherished belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, which, of course, is pure nonsense.

Man descending from monkeys is also nonsense.

Modern humans evolved from creatures like the ones whose bones are currently being dug up in Africa, creatures now extinct. Our lineage includes a series of creatures of the genus homo that aren't of the species sapiens. Our closest living relatives, biologically speaking, are the chimpanzees, that share about 98% of our genome. That doesn't mean that we descended from chimps, either. Rather, both humans and chimps branched off from the same evolutionary tree around 2 million or so years ago.

I'm not giving you a hard time but that sounds like double speak.

If both humans and chimps share a common ancestor then that ancestor would be more monkey-like than man-like, right?

That doesn't sound like bible literism to me.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

I'm not giving you a hard time but that sounds like double speak.

If both humans and chimps share a common ancestor then that ancestor would be more monkey-like than man-like, right?

That doesn't sound like bible literism to me.

But it would be more man-like than monkey-like.

 

[Missourian]

But it would be more man-like than monkey-like.

Would you say a chimp is more man-like or more monkey-like?

 

[Skeptik]

Would you say a chimp is more man-like or more monkey-like?

Genetically, chimps are closer to humans than to monkeys, but they are a different genus from either.

 

[Missourian]

Genetically, chimps are closer to humans than to monkeys, but they are a different genus from either.

That wasn't the straight forward type answer I was looking for.

I was looking for a statement like 'A chimp looks more like a monkey to me' or 'Chimps resemble men much more than monkeys'.

I think a chimp resembles a monkey more than it does a man. I also believe an ancestor of a chimp would look more like a monkey than a man.

 

[Skeptik]

That wasn't the straight forward type answer I was looking for.

I was looking for a statement like 'A chimp looks more like a monkey to me' or 'Chimps resemble men much more than monkeys'.

I think a chimp resembles a monkey more than it does a man. I also believe an ancestor of a chimp would look more like a monkey than a man.

What a creature "looks like" is a poor test of where it is in the evolutionary tree, or where it fits in taxonomy. Its DNA is a far better indicator.

One would think that a brook trout is more closely related to a brown trout than a rainbow is, since people tend to confuse the first two, while the third has distinct coloration and a different dentition. Genetically, however, the brook is not really a trout at all, despite its superficial similarity to the brown, but a member of the char family. It is not only a separate species, but a separate genus as well.

I think what you were looking for was an affirmation of your position, rather than a straight forward type answer.

 

[Missourian]

What a creature "looks like" is a poor test of where it is in the evolutionary tree, or where it fits in taxonomy. Its DNA is a far better indicator.

One would think that a brook trout is more closely related to a brown trout than a rainbow is, since people tend to confuse the first two, while the third has distinct coloration and a different dentition. Genetically, however, the brook is not really a trout at all, despite its superficial similarity to the brown, but a member of the char family. It is not only a separate species, but a separate genus as well.

I think what you were looking for was an affirmation of your position, rather than a straight forward type answer.

I think you're being evasive to avoid affirming my position.

Brook trout, Rainbow trout and Brown trout all share one surprising similarity...they all look remarkably like TROUT.

I know, it's startling at first but after awhile you get used to it.

Excuse the sarcasm. I am only attempting to underscore my point. No offense intended.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Would you say a chimp is more man-like or more monkey-like?

Yes I would, as a matter of fact.

 

[Skeptik]

I think you're being evasive to avoid affirming my position.

Brook trout, Rainbow trout and Brown trout all share one surprising similarity...they all look remarkably like TROUT.

I know, it's startling at first but after awhile you get used to it.

Excuse the sarcasm. I am only attempting to underscore my point. No offense intended.

Exactly my point. What they look like does not determine where they on the evolutionary tree. Even though they all look like trout, in a genetic sense, the brook trout is not really a trout.

Which is closest in a biological sense:

A tiger and an armadillo, or
a turtle and an armadillo?

How about a hummingbird and a pelican vs a hawk moth and a hummingbird?

You can't go by superficial resemblance. Nature has come up with the same basic design for creatures that are really very different.

 

[Missourian]

Exactly my point. What they look like does not determine where they on the evolutionary tree. Even though they all look like trout, in a genetic sense, the brook trout is not really a trout.

Which is closest in a biological sense:

A tiger and an armadillo, or
a turtle and an armadillo?

How about a hummingbird and a pelican vs a hawk moth and a hummingbird?

You can't go by superficial resemblance. Nature has come up with the same basic design for creatures that are really very different.

I do see what your getting at.
I just don't think it's relevant to the topic at hand.

In your opinion according to evolutionary theory do monkeys and man likely share relatively recent common evolutionary ancestry?

 

[Skeptik]

I do see what your getting at.
I just don't think it's relevant to the topic at hand.

In your opinion according to evolutionary theory do monkeys and man likely share relatively recent common evolutionary ancestry?

No, I don't.

The branching of Old World monkeys and hominoids apparently occurred in the late Oligocene (38 to 25 million years ago) or early Miocene (25 to 8 million years ago), a time period poorly represented in the fossil record. The lesser apes (gibbons and siamangs) and other hominoid lines diverged about 20 million years ago, while the Asian great apes (the orangutan being the only surviving form) diverged from the African hominoids about 15 to 10 million years ago. Genetic evidence suggests that the ancestral lines of gorillas diverged about 8 million years ago and that chimpanzees and hominids diverged about 5 million years ago.

The point is, you keep alluding to physical resemblance: Did the ancestors of man resemble monkeys? Resemblance is not relevant. That is my point.

 

[Missourian]

No, I don't.



The point is, you keep alluding to physical resemblance: Did the ancestors of man resemble monkeys? Resemblance is not relevant. That is my point.

You'll have to excuse me, I can't read the whole link as I am not home but using my phone between appointments.

So we didn't evolve from ape-like creatures who evolved from monkey-like creatures?

 

[Skeptik]

You'll have to excuse me, I can't read the whole link as I am not home but using my phone between appointments.

So we didn't evolve from ape-like creatures who evolved from monkey-like creatures?

Yes, most likely our immediate ancestors looked more like chimps than like modern man. I suppose if you want to lump all non human primates into a single group, you could make a point that "man descended from monkeys."

From a scientific point of view, it is a lot more complex than that.

 

[michiganFats]

If you have to rely on claiming that the brook trout isn't a trout, then you are probably in over your head. It's a fish!!! You lose. At this point you're just being an argumentative asshole

 

[Diuretic]

If you have to rely on claiming that the brook trout isn't a trout, then you are probably in over your head. It's a fish!!! You lose. At this point you're just being an argumentative asshole

Better than being a common or garden arsehole though.

But to the point. I think - not being up with this stuff - Skeptik is making the point that

From a scientific point of view, it is a lot more complex than that.

I admit to not being able to follow it too well either, due to my ignorance, but I'm sure I'll pick up a bit of info in the thread.

 

[michiganFats]

How complex can it possibly be? He's arguing over a range that is so isolated that it has no bearing on the overall argument he's making. OK, a brook trout may not be like other trout, but I'm willing to bet it ain't even close to a monkey.

 

[Diuretic]

How complex can it possibly be? He's arguing over a range that is so isolated that it has no bearing on the overall argument he's making. OK, a brook trout may not be like other trout, but I'm willing to bet it ain't even close to a monkey.

Even I wouldn't take that bet!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, using the logic that because a species shares some similarities in genes, when did we split from Mice? Were we mice like before we became Ape like?