Evolution

[Mike C]

Evolution

 

I thought this thread is the proper place to post this because of its controversy with the bibles creation theory.

Are people a unique specie as the bible portrays us or did we evolve from the apes?

 

The answer is that we evolved from the apes. More specifically, from the chimpanzees.

But how did it all start?

Well my solution to this problem is that it occured as a 'chance' event.

 

It all started when a chimpanzee was cornered in a situation by a predator that had no way out. But by a 'chance' occurence, there laid a fallen tree branch nearby. So the chimpanzee grabbed the tree branch and used that as a defensive tool by pointing it toward the predator as a weapon.

Needless to say, the predator did not relish the idea of having a mouthful of branches shoved in its face, so it left the scene.

 

The chimpanzee than returned to its tribe and conveyed by motions and oral sounds what he/she had accomplished.

So from that point on, tree branches became a valuable tool since they could have had their twigs removed and the tips gnawed to a point as a spear.

This involved only 'one' chimpanzee tribe in Africa.

 

So from this point on over long periods of time, this crude spear progressed to the use of metals and other further improvements.

 

NS

[Janus]

While I have no disagreement over the fact of man's evolution, your description of how it occured is way off the beam.

 

1 Man did not evolve from the the chimpanzee, rather the chimpanzee and man evolved from the same common ancestor. (In fact, recent studies indicate that since that split, chimpanzees have actually evolved more than man.

 

2. Just the discovery of tools is not enough to lead to present day humans, there were other tool using hominids on evolutionary branches that went extinct.

[Buffy]

In addition to Janus' comments, this theory seems quite Lamarckian--a theory that you may wish to research further before expanding this thread.

 

Learning != Evolution,

Buffy

[Mike C]

While I have no disagreement over the fact of man's evolution, your description of how it occured is way off the beam.

 

1 Man did not evolve from the the chimpanzee, rather the chimpanzee and man evolved from the same common ancestor. (In fact, recent studies indicate that since that split, chimpanzees have actually evolved more than man.

 

2. Just the discovery of tools is not enough to lead to present day humans, there were other tool using hominids on evolutionary branches that went extinct.

 

Janus

You will notice that I said humans evolved fron just ONE chimpanzee tribe.

 

During those earlier years, there no doubt were hundreds of Chimpanzee tribes.

 

That would explain the research of DNA evidence that we have had ONE anscestral origin.

 

You know that the zhimpanzees and our human DNA's have a very close match.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

Of course! Why bother looking at existing information and evidence, and ensuring your theories can also explain that data, when one could just invent their own description that has no basis in reality? Brilliant approach. Probably will be a lot more popular anyway! :bouquet:

[Janus]

Janus

You will notice that I said humans evolved fron just ONE chimpanzee tribe.

 

During those earlier years, there no doubt were hundreds of Chimpanzee tribes.

 

That would explain the research of DNA evidence that we have had ONE anscestral origin.

 

You know that the zhimpanzees and our human DNA's have a very close match.

 

NS

 

What you just said has nothing to do with the fact that Humans did not decend from Chimpanzees.

 

Chimpanzees and humans diverged from each other about 5 million years ago. Since then the human line evolved through a number of hominid species before reaching modern man. Since the studies I mentioned show that the Chimpanzee evolved more than humans since that split, there should be just as many species separating the chimpanzee from that split as there is for man. (In fact, the bonobos split from the chimps after the lines leading to humans and chimps separated.)

 

The upshot is that when the two lines diverged, chimpanzees didn't even exist yet.

 

The reason that we share so much DNA with the chimps is that we separated more recently from them than the other great apes.

In the same way, you are more closely related to a first cousin than you are to a second cousin. But this does not mean that you descended from your first cousin or they from you.

[Eclogite]

It all started when a chimpanzee was cornered in a situation by a predator that had no way out. But by a 'chance' occurence, there laid a fallen tree branch nearby. So the chimpanzee grabbed the tree branch and used that as a defensive tool by pointing it toward the predator as a weapon.

I feel constrained to ask if you watched 2001 as a child. Did you?

 

Remember, to copy one person is plagiarism.

To copy many people is research.

To copy no one is madness.

[maikeru]

Evolution

 

I thought this thread is the proper place to post this because of its controversy with the bibles creation theory.

 

Some scholars think that Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis suggest two different accounts, not one coherent, single account. There could be two slightly different theories explained in the Bible itself.

 

Creation according to Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Are people a unique specie as the bible portrays us or did we evolve from the apes?

 

Every species is a unique species. What you are really asking is if we are a "special" species, in the sense that we are "higher," "greater," or "better" because we are the "chosen" species and somehow this "speciality" makes us more important in the sense of Creation and God's Work.

 

Along with the "great chain of being," 'tis a medieval church idea that has not lost a lot of sway in the minds of many. The sun and heavens do not go around the earth, nor do angels, animals, plants, and minerals occupy lesser or greater positions in existence in relation to man.

 

Great chain of being - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The answer is that we evolved from the apes. More specifically, from the chimpanzees.

But how did it all start?

Well my solution to this problem is that it occured as a 'chance' event.

 

You are asking the wrong question as Janus points out, because you are confusing living great apes with extinct predecessors and common ancestors. The living and the dead are not and were not the same. This is a variation on the "humans from monkeys" argument that Creationists use often to discredit evolution. See my post in the link below, where I cover this in detail.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/11406-evolution.html

 

It all started when a chimpanzee was cornered in a situation by a predator that had no way out. But by a 'chance' occurence, there laid a fallen tree branch nearby. So the chimpanzee grabbed the tree branch and used that as a defensive tool by pointing it toward the predator as a weapon.

Needless to say, the predator did not relish the idea of having a mouthful of branches shoved in its face, so it left the scene.

 

The chimpanzee than returned to its tribe and conveyed by motions and oral sounds what he/she had accomplished.

So from that point on, tree branches became a valuable tool since they could have had their twigs removed and the tips gnawed to a point as a spear.

This involved only 'one' chimpanzee tribe in Africa.

 

So from this point on over long periods of time, this crude spear progressed to the use of metals and other further improvements.

 

NS

 

Or maybe chimps like to eat bushbabies, so they invented spears:

 

Chimps Make Spears and Hunt Bushbabies | LiveScience

 

Perhaps they are intelligent enough, sophisticated enough, and culturally capable enough of innovation!

 

Still...we're not descended from chimpanzees and chimpanzees aren't descended from us. We have common ancestors. Sorry.

[Mike C]

Maikeru

 

Since you disagree with what I posted, does that mean we were created by 'yahweh as the bible teaches?

 

Although I agree in the existence of spirit (both good and bad), I am more realistic to assume that we were created from mud as the bible teaches.This is ludicrous.

 

NS

[Eclogite]

NewScience, I am having real trouble following your post. I suspect others may share this difficulty.

Maikeru, Since you disagree with what I posted, does that mean we were created by 'yahweh as the bible teaches?

Your question does not seem to follow logically from your statement. You might as easily have said 'Since you disagree with what I have posted, does that mean that the Dallas Cowboys won the Superbowl in 1987?'

Why should disagreeing with your hypothesis imply belief that we were created by 'yahweh as the bible teaches?

 

Although I agree in the existence of spirit (both good and bad), I am more realistic to assume that we were created from mud as the bible teaches.

Again, your intent here is obscure. You are more realistic than what, to assume we are created from mud? It just doesn't make sense as written.

This is ludicrous.

What is ludicrous? That we were created from mud? (But you think it is realistic to assume this.) Something else? Please help us to understand your argument by clarifying these points.

 

Also, you have not responded to maikeru's asccurate observations about human ancestry.

[Janus]

Maikeru

 

Since you disagree with what I posted, does that mean we were created by 'yahweh as the bible teaches?

 

 

 

NS

 

How did you get that from what Maikeru posted? Do you even bother to read other people's responses?

[Mike C]

To All

 

What I am trying to get here is an answer of how the biblical version of man was introduced (created).

 

Reading endless references without that answer is a waste of time.

 

Thank you for a 'breif answer.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

What I am trying to get here is an answer of how the biblical version of man was introduced (created).

Are you asking how the bible accounts for the creation of man? If so, then in Genesis 1:26-27, he created man out of his own image with dust and dirt as resources. Then, from this man's rib, he made female per Genesis 2:22-23.

 

 

However, I'm not sure I follow your question. The biblical account for the creation of man was "introduced" by the men/women responsible for writing the story of Genesis, or perhaps the epic poets who sung this tale before it was written. It doesn't necessarily have any basis in fact or science.

 

What ARE you asking? B)

 

 

Also, there's a difference between "endless references" to read, and a few links to help explain on a simple level the process by which life as we know exists today. You weren't asked to read "Origin of Species," you were given 2 or 3 pages of clear, concise information. :)

[Mike C]

Are you asking how the bible accounts for the creation of man? If so, then in Genesis 1:26-27, he created man out of his own image with dust and dirt as resources. Then, from this man's rib, he made female per Genesis 2:22-23.

 

 

However, I'm not sure I follow your question. The biblical account for the creation of man was "introduced" by the men/women responsible for writing the story of Genesis, or perhaps the epic poets who sung this tale before it was written. It doesn't necessarily have any basis in fact or science.

 

What ARE you asking? :)

 

Also, there's a difference between "endless references" to read, and a few links to help explain on a simple level the process by which life as we know exists today. You weren't asked to read "Origin of Species," you were given 2 or 3 pages of clear, concise information. :)

 

Well, what you quote above is what I also read.

So it is obvious that 'Evolution' is more credible than the bible version.

Ha ha.

 

Also, the idea that Yahweh created man to his own image can be considered to be falsified.

The French scientist have researched the idea of 'Immaculate Conception' and find that only females can reproduce themselves (2 amphibious creatures)without a male and they only reproduce to their own image.

 

Males cannot do that.

 

I asm quoting this from memory that I read this article but cannot recall the source of this news item.

 

NS

[maikeru]

Maikeru

 

Since you disagree with what I posted, does that mean we were created by 'yahweh as the bible teaches?

 

I think it would help if you read my post to know what I think.

 

Although I agree in the existence of spirit (both good and bad), I am more realistic to assume that we were created from mud as the bible teaches.This is ludicrous.

 

NS

 

There's no doubt--no, none at all in my mind--that we are made of the soil and clay we walk upon. Tillers of the soil, molded from the clay. Humble stuff humans are. Then it's no wonder our nearest living relative is Gumby:

 

Gumby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Chimps have nothing on Gumby.

[REASON]

What I find ironic is that New Science's chimp and stick story has more in common with Creation Theory than it does with evolutionary science, in that both were made up.

 

Evidence is the key to unravelling any mystery.

[Freddy]

Last week I caught part of the film, Inherit The Wind, which fictionalized the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial as it has been called. Hard to believe there is still a debate going on.

This link has an explanation of human evolution as well as the evolution of apes.

Human Evolution