How far can you stretch commonsense? its too simple to extend to ultimate truths

Why has No any ape evolve to man again for the last hundred or thousand years. No fish evolve to bird? No lizard evolve to dog?

^^^
Maybe you read on evolution, before drawing any conclusions. Nobody said humans evolved apes, its a Christian fallacy spinning around the Internet and churches.

frosbel:


Let me speak for myself here, yes I do have evidence.

It's called COMMON SENSE !!!

And I guess common sense leads you to think that about 2,000 years ago, zombies were roaming about in the Palestine region.

Kay 17:

^^^
Maybe you read on evolution, before drawing any conclusions. Nobody said humans evolved apes, its a Christian fallacy spinning around the Internet and churches.

What does evolution says? If not ape evolved to man,

macayub:

What does evolution says? If not ape evolved to man,

Actually, humans are apes.

Kay 17:

^^^^

Davidlyan, do you have any evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution?


Please Publish it here.


, waiting

any evidence that justifies it? I mean if there was concrete evidence we wont be here arguing would we? You would have provided your FACTS and shut us up no?

thehomer:

Actually, humans are apes.

stop saying nonsense.

davidylan:
. . . .
stop saying nonsense.

You expect him, him of all people, him, to stop saying nonsense! That will be the day.

Enigma:

You expect him, him of all people, him, to stop saying nonsense! That will be the day.

i have hope . . . lol

davidylan:

. . . .

stop saying nonsense.

What is nonsensical about it? Do you know what apes are? My advice to you now is that you look up what apes are and find out if humans fit into that category.
You really need to try to reduce your ignorance of basic biology before entering on such discussions.

thehomer:

What is nonsensical about it? Do you know what apes are? My advice to you now is that you look up what apes are and find out if humans fit into that category.
You really need to try to reduce your ignorance of basic biology before entering on such discussions.

the refuge of the clueless atheist. Accuse others of ignorance when they have a different opinion to his. The atheist and his over-inflated sense of intelligence.

Wikipedia puts it like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

We are all members of the hominoid superfamily . . . but apes we certainly arent dude.

Dont be too quick to expose your own vapidity.

Oh and while you're here, I'm yet to get your response to this post I made I've included it in its entirety below. I hope you've taken the time to educate yourself out of the ignorance you're repeatedly displaying.

davidylan:

exactly my point if you bothered to read or think through what i wrote . . . let me restate it here - well the ONLY reason this is postulated is the prevailing bias of having to account for the imbalance in number of chromosomes between humans and the primates they are claimed to have descended from.

You seem to agree that the reason the chromosome 2 fusion THEORY (no evidence) is postulated is that it solves the problem of why we have one less pair of chromosomes than apes. i.e. it is a "theory" that was formulated to account for an already biased outcome.

Again, this is simply not correct. It appears that you lack the necessary background knowledge to understand the implication of the evidence presented to you. My advice to you now is that you should look up what cetromeres and telomeres are and where they are generally located on chromosomes.

davidylan:

Secondly, rather than just foaming in the mouth and posting links you dont understand - let me humor you for a second and say that indeed human chromosome 2 is the fusion of ape chromosomes 2p and 2q . . . are you suggesting that the genes on chromosome 2 are largely responsible for the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimps today? Why are we different?

Once again, you're ranting about people posting links they don't understand when you're the one who doesn't understand what is said on the links. It isn't about humoring me but about what the evidence shows. Put some effort into understanding it.
No that is not what I am suggesting the point there is that it is one of the traces of human evolution.

davidylan:

In what way does a fusion event in chromosome 2 suggest common ancestry with chimps?

It shows that human ancestors once had 24 pairs of chromosomes like chimps.

davidylan:

Its a valid question - why cant you answer it? apes share 99% similarity with human DNA . . . why do they encode 2 completely disimilar phenotypes?

You already said it yourself that a single alteration can give vastly different results which should answer your question. Another thing you need to realize is that the 99% similarity is of about 6 billion diploid base pairs. This of course makes the 1% a large number in absolute terms.
And the phenotypes aren't that dissimilar when you compare them both to mice, birds, fish or round worms.

@Davidlyan

so where is your falsifying evidence? . . . . . . . waiting. . . . . . waiting. . . . . . .

it would be groundbreaking.

thehomer:

Oh and while you're here, I'm yet to get your response to this post I made I've included it in its entirety below. I hope you've taken the time to educate yourself out of the ignorance you're repeatedly displaying.

Again, this is simply not correct. It appears that you lack the necessary background knowledge to understand the implication of the evidence presented to you. My advice to you now is that you should look up what cetromeres and telomeres are and where they are generally located on chromosomes.

Once again, you're ranting about people posting links they don't understand when you're the one who doesn't understand what is said on the links. It isn't about humoring me but about what the evidence shows. Put some effort into understanding it.
No that is not what I am suggesting the point there is that it is one of the traces of human evolution.

Quite stup[i]i[/i]d really . . . that we should be arguing this meaningless point trumpeted mostly by internet jingoists.

chromosome 2 may be an example of a past fusion event . . . a clear evidence of direct descent from apes it certainly isnt.
That would suggest that the huge difference between humans and apes lies mostly in chromosome 2 which is very untrue.
Several humans carry chromosomal mutations including fusion events and shockingly still look just as human as you!
You know some horses have differing chromosome numbers from other horses right?

davidylan:

the refuge of the clueless atheist. Accuse others of ignorance when they have a different opinion to his. The atheist and his over-inflated sense of intelligence.

Wikipedia puts it like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Dont be too quick to expose your own vapidity.

Did you read the page you posted? Here let me see if I can make even this simply worded introduction to the article clearer for you.

Wikipedia:
Apes are animals, members of the biological superfamily Hominoidea, part of the order Primates. Hominoidea contains two families of living (extant) species:

[list]
[li]Hylobatidae consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang. They are commonly referred to as lesser apes.[/li]
[li][size=14pt]Hominidae[/size] consists of orangutans, gorillas, common chimpanzees, bonobos and [size=14pt]humans[/size]. Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes.[/li]
[/list]

This is the introductory part of the article did you even read it?

Kay 17:

@Davidlyan

so where is your falsifying evidence? . . . . . . . waiting. . . . . . waiting. . . . . . .

it would be groundbreaking.

I asked a simple question - if there was CONCRETE proof that evolution is real would we be arguing here? Present your evidence pls.

Its hypocritically stupid the way atheists tell you its foolish to be expected to provide evidence that God doesnt exist (bleating loudly that we provide evidence that He does exist) then turn around to push the very same line of argument they discredited when it comes to evolution.
Bring evidence of evolution my dear then we can talk . . . until then i will simply treat you as the empty headed nuisance you truly are.

thehomer:

Did you read the page you posted? Here let me see if I can make even this simply worded introduction to the article clearer for you.

This is the introductory part of the article did you even read it?

what an ignorant fool . . . did you read my own post at all? Here let me reproduce it:

davidylan:

the refuge of the clueless atheist. Accuse others of ignorance when they have a different opinion to his. The atheist and his over-inflated sense of intelligence.

Wikipedia puts it like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

[size=13pt]We are all members of the hominoid superfamily . . . but apes we certainly arent dude[/size].

Dont be too quick to expose your own vapidity.

Did you read that link? You must have seen the EXPLICIT demarcation of members of the hominoid superfamily into 3 distinct classes (its two very clear trees):

1. humans
2. great apes
3. lesser apes

I would hate to include blindness, deliberate dishonesty and extreme hypocrisy to your problems.

I understand several atheist scientists are trying too hard to push humans into the apes category thus blunting the traditional demarcation of members of the hominoid family all in the bid to push the "we all descended from a common ancestor" theory. But clearly . . . humans are phenotypically and functionally different from other members of the hominoid family. Even a fool or a 2 yr old would see that.

davidylan:

Quite stup[i]i[/i]d really . . . that we should be arguing this meaningless point trumpeted mostly by internet jingoists.

How is it meaningless? You've been whining about it for so long and this is the best you can do after several hours?

davidylan:

chromosome 2 may be an example of a past fusion event . . . a clear evidence of direct descent from apes it certainly isnt.

Firstly, humans are apes. Secondly, it is a part of the evidence showing the ancestral links.
In fact, this is what I actually said. Did you read it?

thehomer:
It shows that human ancestors once had 24 pairs of chromosomes like chimps.

(Emphasis added)

davidylan:

That would suggest that the huge difference between humans and apes lies mostly in chromosome 2 which is very untrue.

Again, no it doesn't suggest this. Did you actually read my post?

davidylan:

Several humans carry chromosomal mutations including fusion events and shockingly still look just as human as you!

Now it seems you're simply being dull. I hope you understand why these fusion events are called diseases or aberrations.

davidylan:

You know some horses have differing chromosome numbers from other horses right?

And how would this actually detract from what I've said?

Oh my. This is a clear example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that you and others in your shoes are so afraid of. The problematic thing here is that I've tried to show you these things I've even tried to make you read these things yet you seem unable to understand basic principles in biology.

Let me put in my two cents.

Let's assume that there was a fusion of two different chromosomes to provide the 'difference' between man and 'apes'.

The crucial questions are these:

- When did this fusion happen?

- Does the fact that there is 99% similarity in DNA compulsorily require a common evolutionary ancestor? Could this similarity not arise from common building blocks?

Let me use a simple analogy:

If I make two cakes from a batch of dough, but add different ingredients to the dough, it doesn't mean one cake 'evolved' from the same source, it simply means they have the most of the same building blocks.

Better yet, I could fill a nylon bag with roughly the proportion of water, salts and other elements found in the human body, and on a compositional basis, both a human and the bag of water and other compounds could be virtually identical. That would not be sufficient for anyone to say they evolved from a common ancestor would it?

thehomer:

How is it meaningless? You've been whining about it for so long and this is the best you can do after several hours?

whining about what? You think i spend all day thinking about how to respond to thehomer's senseless, meaningless hubris?

thehomer:

Firstly, humans are apes. Secondly, it is a part of the evidence showing the ancestral links.
In fact, this is what I actually said. Did you read it?
(Emphasis added)

humans are apes based on what? because thehomer said so? did you read the link i sent you? obviously not if you missed the 2 huge family trees staring back at you.

thehomer:

Again, no it doesn't suggest this. Did you actually read my post?

Daft. I'm not interested in what YOU said because you obviously cant think. If the argument is that apes and humans have the exact same number of chromosomes and sequence of genes then it would suggest that the fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q may be the key diff between humans and apes . . . we know that is untrue.

thehomer:

Now it seems you're simply being dull. I hope you understand why these fusion events are called diseases or aberrations.

Dont be stup[i]i[/i]d . . . a fusion event in chromosome 2 is evidence of ancestry in one case and another harmless fusion event in other chromosomes is merely an abheration?

thehomer:

And how would this actually detract from what I've said?

Oh my. This is a clear example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that you and others in your shoes are so afraid of. The problematic thing here is that I've tried to show you these things I've even tried to make you read these things yet you seem unable to understand basic principles in biology.

out come the over-inflated sense of intelligence. did all you atheists hold a meeting here to start using this term?

debosky:

Let me put in my two cents.

Let's assume that there was a fusion of two different chromosomes to provide the 'difference' between man and 'apes'.

The crucial questions are these:

- When did this fusion happen?

- Does the fact that there is 99% similarity in DNA compulsorily require a common evolutionary ancestor? Could this similarity not arise from common building blocks?

Let me use a simple analogy:

If I make two cakes from a batch of dough, but add different ingredients to the dough, it doesn't mean one cake 'evolved' from the same source, it simply means they have the most of the same building blocks.

Better yet, I could fill a nylon bag with roughly the proportion of water, salts and other elements found in the human body, and on a compositional basis, both a human and the bag of water and other compounds could be virtually identical. That would not be sufficient for anyone to say they evolved from a common ancestor would it?

Dont expect a sensible response . . . i have pushed that line of argument before and i was labeled a member of the dunning-krugger club.

davidylan:

what an ignorant fool . . . did you read my own post at all? Here let me reproduce it:

Ha ha.

davidylan:

Did you read that link? You must have seen the EXPLICIT demarcation of members of the hominoid superfamily into 3 distinct classes (its two very clear trees):

1. humans
2. great apes
3. lesser apes

I would hate to include blindness, deliberate dishonesty and extreme hypocrisy to your problems.

I now see what the problem is, you have a poor reading comprehension skill.

Could you please show me where you got that classification from? Please don't say it was from the article you linked.

Humans are great apes. Once more just to be sure that the problem is with your reading comprehension, look at the groups that include the great apes from Wikipedia

Wikipedia:
The Hominidae (pronounced /hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; anglicized hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]), as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees (Pan), gorillas (Gorilla), humans (Homo), and orangutans (Pongo). In the past, the term was used in the more restricted sense of humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees.

Let me see what you have to say about this.
I really have to wonder if there is some sort of alternate Wikipedia you're looking at or if the problem is that you simply are unable to understand scientific information you read.

davidylan:

I understand several atheist scientists are trying too hard to push humans into the apes category thus blunting the traditional demarcation of members of the hominoid family all in the bid to push the "we all descended from a common ancestor" theory. But clearly . . . humans are phenotypically and functionally different from other members of the hominoid family. Even a fool or a 2 yr old would see that.

Humans are apes by classification. No one says they are identical in all respects to all in their families after all, the other members also differ from each other. We can also see that they are more similar to each other than to kangaroos.

thehomer:

Ha ha.

I now see what the problem is, you have a poor reading comprehension skill.

Could you please show me where you got that classification from? Please don't say it was from the article you linked.

From the same wiki link - [size=13pt]The diagram below shows the currently accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea,[2] with the apes marked by a bracket.[/size]

Read the tree below it:

Please see the reference here - M. Goodman, D. A. Tagle, D. H. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak, B. F. Koop, P. Benson, J. L. Slightom (1990). "Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids". Journal of Molecular Evolution 30 (3): 260–266. doi:10.1007/BF02099995

Evolution as every other scientific theory is falsifiable. The evidence adduced to it are well linked to its definitions and predictions it makes. Mutation

occurs, natural selection and survival being the instinctive aim of all organisms, fossils will be unraveled to display the tree of life and close up the

missing links. There are no irreducibly complex organisms . . . provide one evidence and the theory collapses.

davidylan:

whining about what? You think i spend all day thinking about how to respond to thehomer's senseless, meaningless hubris?

No, I noticed that you've been responding to posts made on other threads and even this one after I had made a post that essentially showed the rubbish you've been saying.

davidylan:

humans are apes based on what? because thehomer said so? did you read the link i sent you? obviously not if you missed the 2 huge family trees staring back at you.

No, because they are classified as such. Please do yourself a favour and read.

davidylan:

Daft. I'm not interested in what YOU said because you obviously cant think. If the argument is that apes and humans have the exact same number of chromosomes and sequence of genes then it would suggest that the fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q may be the key diff between humans and apes . . . we know that is untrue.

It becomes progressively clear that you're interested in what I said but you simply are unable to understand what I said for reasons I don't understand.
And I already said that it wasn't the argument. And for some reason, you don't seem to understand that humans are apes are you blind, unable to read or what?

davidylan:

Dont be stup[i]i[/i]d . . . a fusion event in chromosome 2 is evidence of ancestry in one case and another harmless fusion event in other chromosomes is merely an abheration?

What on earth are you saying? Are you this dumb or are you just acting? What harmless fusion event are you talking about? Please stop this demonstration of idiocy you're dragging down the intelligence of other theists.

davidylan:

out come the over-inflated sense of intelligence. did all you atheists hold a meeting here to start using this term?

No, it is simply a term that aptly demonstrates what you're doing here. In your ignorance, you simply assert that expert biologists in their own fields don't know what they're doing.

thehomer:
. . . .
Oh my. This is a clear example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that you and others in your shoes are so afraid of. . . .

As I have said repeatedly: anywhere you see an evangelical atheist, even on his own, you see the very worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. 

davidylan:

From the same wiki link - [size=13pt]The diagram below shows the currently accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea,[2] with the apes marked by a bracket.[/size]

Read the tree below it:

Please see the reference here - M. Goodman, D. A. Tagle, D. H. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak, B. F. Koop, P. Benson, J. L. Slightom (1990). "Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids". Journal of Molecular Evolution 30 (3): 260–266. doi:10.1007/BF02099995

You're still saying rubbish. The Wikipedia article shows you the information on that article. In fact, please read the abstract and tell me how it shows the rubbish you're peddling. My advice to you is that you once again take the time to read the relevant article.

Here's the abstract:

Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids. (Abstract):

The genetic distances among primate lineages estimated from orthologous noncoding nucleotide sequences of beta-type globin loci and their flanking and intergenic DNA agree closely with the distances (delta T50H values) estimated by cross hybridization of total genomic single-copy DNAs. These DNA distances and the maximum parsimony tree constructed for the nucleotide sequence orthologues depict a branching pattern of primate lineages that is essentially congruent with the picture from phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters. The molecular evidence, however, resolves ambiguities in the morphological picture and provides an objective view of the cladistic position of humans among the primates. The molecular data group humans with chimpanzees in subtribe Hominina, with gorillas in tribe Hominini, orangutans in subfamily Homininae, gibbons in family Hominidae, Old World monkeys in infraorder Catarrhini, New World monkeys in semisuborder Anthropoidea, tarsiers in suborder Haplorhini, and strepsirhines (lemuriforms and lorisiforms) in order Primates. A seeming incongruency between organismal and molecular levels of evolution, namely that morphological evolution appears to have speeded up in higher primates, especially in the lineage to humans, while molecular evolution has slowed down, may have the trivial explanation that relatively small genetic changes may sometimes result in marked phenotypic changes.

Source

(Emphasis mine)
Please tell me, how does this help your case?

Enigma:

As I have said repeatedly: anywhere you see an evangelical atheist, even on his own, you see the very worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. 

And my advice to you is that you look up what it means, look at what your ally davidylan is saying then look at the Wikipedia links and other recommendations he's been given then let us know your conclusion.
If you wish to follow him blindly, be my guest but don't be surprised if you're tarred by the same brush.
If you have something sensible to contribute to this discussion please do so otherwise be silent.

^^^Abeg go siddon.

What I said stands and is indeed ipso facto or if you like res ipsa loquitur (I guess your "lawyer" is around, I would expect him to be able to explain those; but then, maybe not).

Anyhooooo the fact remains: no matter the circumstances anywhere you see an evangelical atheist, even on his own, you see the worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. QED 



Edited - typos and all that.

Unfortunately the discussion has become 'trapped' in a rut.

Let's leave aside the 'classification' issue and go back to the question on the origin of man. Regardless of the taxonomical classification questions, my view is that similarities are not sufficient to confirm that man and chimpanzees, etc. had a common ancestor.

debosky:

Unfortunately the discussion has become 'trapped' in a rut.

Let's leave aside the 'classification' issue and go back to the question on the origin of man. Regardless of the taxonomical classification questions, my view is that similarities are not sufficient to confirm that man and chimpanzees, etc. had a common ancestor.

what about DNA?

Enigma:

^^^Abeg go siddon.

What I said stands and is indeed ipso facto or if you like res ipsa loquitur (I guess your "lawyer" is around, I would expect him to be able to explain those; but then, maybe not).

Anyhooooo the fact remains: no matter the circumstances anywhere you see an evangelical atheist, even on his own, you see the worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. QED 



Edited - typos and all that.

Please take your whining somewhere else. It seems you've become another one of those Nairaland characters who jumps in on a thread with nothing sensible to contribute.
Good luck to you.