Evolution - A serious question.

[One Brow]

This gives a bit more depth on the human taxonomy.

This diagram is inaccuate. It shows chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas as being more recently related to each other than to humans. Humans are more recently related to chimpanzees than either is related to gorillas. Humans, shimpanzees, and gorillas are all more recently related to each other than any of them are to orangutans.

 

[One Brow]

"Descended from 'ape-like ancestor'" does not equal "descended from apes." The appropriate way to look at it is "current apes and humans descend from the same ancestor."

There is no biologically meaningful category of "apes" that includes chimpanzees and gorillas but exludes humans.

 

[One Brow]

But I have One Brow telling me that humans are apes. Marcus saying we are Greater Apes. Are you guys part of different Darwin sects or something?

Darkwing Duck is likely using outdated information. At one point, the evidence was unclear on which species were more closely related, so humans assumed/guessed orangutans, gorillas and chimps were more like each other than wither was like a human. Now, we know that is not true, and that chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than either are to gorillas.

 

[PearlWatson]

Your "clarification" adds nothing. You've acknowledged God can create with an undirected process, and there is no reaso to exclude humans from that.

I acknowledged that God can create an undirected process. If He sets out to create humans (as you stated) that can't be an undirected process by definition.

 

[TroutBum]

Darkwing Duck is likely using outdated information. At one point, the evidence was unclear on which species were more closely related, so humans assumed/guessed orangutans, gorillas and chimps were more like each other than wither was like a human. Now, we know that is not true, and that chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than either are to gorillas.

But... but... he is a Know-it-More.

 

[Scat]

People have such an incorrect assumption on what evolution means. It's simply the change in gene frequencies in a population over time. A population is defined as a group of organisms that are willing and able to reproduce. Once a group of organisms that previously could create reproducing children with the rest of the population lose that ability, you have a new species. That's called speciation.

Your definition makes more sense than a lot that I have heard over the years but on the surface it seems to take into account only small specific trait differences that improve survival whereas according to most "evolutionists" all life forms on earth that have ever been, are or will be came from the same "organic goo". That means man came from the same original goo that crocodiles did that sharks did that dung beetles did.

I can see how a finch that shows a mutation in beak size can become a a more successful specie as it is allowed to eat a before now inedible food giving it an advantage over other finches thereby making it more successful. Or a turtle that has a slightly different shell shape allowing it to stretch its neck upwards allowing it to eat foods out of reach to other turtles. Saying that these minor mutations over time will allow these animals to turn into some totally unrelated and unrecognizable life form over time is where you start to lose people.

 

[TroutBum]

I should come across as a pompous, know-it-more prick.

And I have tried in threads like this. And then, a year later, the same thread pops up. So what is the point then if someone else, or in some of the cases the same people, just under different usernames, keep using the same defunctive argument no matter how many times you show him/her the fallacy to his/her crowing?

So, because Hopper disagrees with you, you give up? Well played, that'll show him.

Seriously, why don't you just forget about him and give the rest of us your thoughts and opinions? Try telling us your feelings/beliefs, not what you KNOW. I bet you get a better reaction, discussion, etc.

 

[One Brow]

I acknowledged that God can create an undirected process. If He sets out to create humans (as you stated) that can't be an undirected process by definition.

God can't know the outcome of a process unless God specifically directs the process? If this putative God is both omniscient and omnipotent, I suggest such a god can indeed start a undirected process while knowing the outcome. Feel free to try to prove otherwise.

 

[One Brow]

Saying that these minor mutations over time will allow these animals to turn into some totally unrelated and unrecognizable life form over time is where you start to lose people.

However, there is no limit on the cumulative effect of these changes, and the time scales are almost unimaginable.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

But I have One Brow telling me that humans are apes. Marcus saying we are Greater Apes. Are you guys part of different Darwin sects or something?

Merely a debate in classification naming, unrelated to the concept of evolution itself. Great Apes and humans have the same superfamily, which is around the same area as canines, for comparison. Humans have the same requirements biologically to be classified as a "great ape," and so can be put into that classification.

Also, classification is hard when you get into the family and subfamilies. It's unclear when exactly all extant great apes diverged from each other. We know now from the genome that humans are closer to chimpanzees, then gorillas, and least related to orangutans. The new fossils that have been discovered in the past decade garble the family section of the code, as well as the genus portion of the human line.

Basically, whether you say humans and the great apes, or the great apes including humans, you're saying the same thing.

 

[Scat]

How does the concept of free agency have anything to do with evolution?

Free agency probably wasn't the best example.

Basically what I was driving at is God can set the wheels in motion but once moving they are allowed to go where they may.

You set up and organize a little league baseball league. You make all the rules, you teach all the players how to play, you set everything up according to certain parameters. You've done everything you can to make it run according to a plan. The problem is that the second the ump yells, "Play ball" you have no control over the specific outcome. You can't control how the kids will play. All you can do is enforce the specific rules and let the kids play it out.

God set up the rules, laid the ground work and put into play certain parameters and then yelled, "play ball".

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This diagram is inaccuate. It shows chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas as being more recently related to each other than to humans. Humans are more recently related to chimpanzees than either is related to gorillas. Humans, shimpanzees, and gorillas are all more recently related to each other than any of them are to orangutans.

Yeah, it seems a bit off to me on a closer look. As I have mentioned in my previous post before this, the family area is kind of a mess right now.