<p>One last comment that I have on this subject. </p>
<p>I realize that many people who argue against evolution are very intransigent and there is no amount of evidence that will change their minds.</p>
<p>However, for those people who are actually interested in evidence, reason, the scientific method and learning the truth, but who will probably not take the time to read a book, I suggest that you visit the Pandasthumb.org. Visit the Forum there and spend time reading items of interest and ask any questions that you have. There are several very knowledgeable people there who have a lot of experience at debunking the misinformation that has been fed to the general public.</p>
<p>It is also revealing that on the science forums you can say anything you wish, as long as you are appropriate, serious and not just ■■■■■■■■. However, if you visit a religious forum and post replies that attempt to explain science, you will quickly be banned. They do not want their audience to know the truth.</p>
Scroll down to the section labeled “Comparative Genomics”.
Click on the first link in that section, “Conservation”.
Select all the primate species available – there are eleven in addition to humans.
Scroll back to the top and hit “submit”. Hit “submit” on the next page as well.
Ta-da! I recommend scrolling out (with the “zoom out 3x” or “zoom out 10x” buttons) so you can see how widely conserved huge parts of the genome are. You can view the alignment for up to an entire chromosome at a time.</p>
<p>When you follow these instructions, you’ll still see the default “rhesus” “mouse” “dog” “elephant” comparisons below the primates, and it’s easy to see how much more conserved the genome is between primates than between primates and other mammals, or primates and other tetrapods. This is a base-by-base sequencing comparison – there’s no reason that the genomes of primates need to be similar across billions of basepairs, especially in “non-coding” sequence that doesn’t lead to protein expression, unless they evolved from a common ancestor.</p>
<p>
There are lots of primate common ancestors – certainly there are as many (or more) fossil primate species known as there are fossil species of other orders of mammals. But fossilization is a rare process, and there’s no doubt that most species that have ever existed are lost to us in the fossil record. </p>
<p>For species that have gone extinct relatively recently, like Neanderthals and the newly-discovered Denisovans, there has been some really exciting recent work to extract DNA from bones and to reconstruct the genomes of these species. The Neanderthal genome is also available at the genome browser site I linked above, and you can compare it with the human genome. I don’t think there’s a full Denisovan genome yet, but hopefully there will be one soon.</p>
<p>Many scientists believe in God, but are not literalists. That means when science appears to be in conflict with religion, they adjust their interpretation of religion.</p>
<p>In my experience, scientists who believe in God find that the awe-inspiring structure of nature, their emotional response to that awe, and the resulting motivation to study the world only serves to deepen their faith.</p>
<p>To a believing scientist, when it comes down to a conflict between science, which is our experience - held to certain high standards - of the world created by God, and texts which are, at best, “inspired by God,” God’s actual creation wins. Science over religion can be a justifiable position for a person of faith.</p>
<p>Religion and science don’t conflict. “Darwinism” has ZERO evidence supporting it, and in fact it seems implausible to those who realize the huge difference between humans and animals. Sadly, many scientists are so eager to “disprove” religion that they purposely don’t realize it (i.e. OMG we have almost the same genes as monkeys!).
Evolution is a phenomenon, “Darwinism” is just a stretch of a theory. It is not to be praised or be taught as right, because it isn’t.</p>
<p>It amazes me how people accept most scientific theories without asking for evidence, but when it comes to evolution they need irrefutable proof(which does exist).</p>
<p>If people want to have this discussion, they need to define their terms. I have no idea what you mean as “evolution” vs. “Darwinisim”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Theories can only be supported or disproved. They cannot be proved. Thus, the common argument of critics that evolution has not been proven is invalid.</p>
<p>It is obvious that you know virtually nothing about the evidence for evolution, and nothing about how scientists think. So why not take the time to actually open a book and learn something about those subjects before you start making pronouncements and insulting scientists as a group? It does not make any sense to refuse to look at the evidence, and then claim that there is ZERO evidence. Closing your eyes and refusing to educate yourself does not make the evidence go away, it just makes you blind.</p>
<p>undefined123, any line of thinking that believes evolution happens but humans are magically exempt is contradicted by science at this point in time.</p>
I’m curious as to how the overwhelming genetic identity between humans and other primates doesn’t count as “evidence” in your estimation.</p>
<p>As for the ad hominem, I don’t think any of us on this thread are interested in disproving any religion. The extension of evolution by natural selection to humans may be incompatible with your religious views, but it is not incompatible with religion generally.</p>
What gets me is the picking and choosing. With respect to the linguistic evolution example I mentioned upthread, nobody ever insists that there was a literal Tower of Babel event from which all linguistic differences between human populations derives.</p>
<p>Science chooses the best natural theory to explain a phenomenon. “And a miracle occurs” is not a valid mechanism. Whether you actually think a divine hand is at work is irrelevant to whether evolution (macro- or micro-) should be taught. It is our best natural explanation for a natural phenomenon. </p>
<p>There are always going to be errors in a theory; it doesn’t mean its invalid or that it necessitates the hand of God. Newtonian mechanics breaks down for very small particles. It doesn’t mean it is an invalid theory or that we should all insert God in the equation.</p>
<p>“Darwinism” makes no sense. Animals and humans are distinct. Maybe not by your “genetics” but by common sense, which you seem to lack.
You keep slamming opposition down, which shows pure provinciality. Unfortunately, this is why we get nowhere in science nowadays.
A “theory” isn’t a “fact.” People seem to consecrate “Darwinism” and “Big Bang” like every piece of these theories is 100% correct. Those people are mistaken.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I am open to being wrong, if there are facts and evidence to support that I am wrong. That is what scientists do. Are you open to being wrong if the facts and evidence show that you are wrong?</p></li>
<li><p>You continue with the ad hominem attacks about being closed minded. That is what brainwashed people do. They lack facts and evidence, so they attack the person any way they can as a distractor. If we do not agree with you, you assert that we are closed minded. However, we have carefully considered the facts, and evidence, while you have not. If someone posts that 1+2=2 and I disagree, am I just being closed minded? </p></li>
<li><p>You avoid the question about why you refuse to read a book and consider the evidence. Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True is excellent and easy to read. Why won’t you consider educating yourself about the thing you so strongly disagree with? What are you afraid of? Why do you always try to ignore this question?</p></li>
<li><p>You take the position that the people you are disagreeing with do not have a good understanding of the differences between humans and other primates. The truth is that everyone you are arguing with has way more biology education than you do and we have a stronger understanding of the differences than you do. In reality, there are many more differences than you are thinking about that need to be understood, such as the big change in the structure of hip bones that is required for upright walking, and if we are so closed related then why do other primates have 24 chromosomes when humans have only 23. </p></li>
<li><p>To be scientific, a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That means that the hypothesis must be able to make predictions about the real (natural) world, that can be determined to be true or false. There is probably no hypothesis that has been test more than evolution in the history of science. </p></li>
<li><p>In science, a Theory is an explanation for which there is a huge amount of supporting evidence. This is quite different from the common usage. The Theory of Evolution is as certain as the Theory that germs cause disease, or the Theory that babies come from people having sex. The pro-stork lobby may argue that they deserve equal time, and that the sexual Theory of baby making is “just a Theory” and that it “Just doesn’t make sense”, however, all of the evidence supports that the sexual theory is in fact correct.</p></li>
<li><p>In science, “It just doesn’t make sense” is not really an adequate counter argument. I do agree with you that for the less educated, it does not make sense. Everyone thinks they understand evolution, but it is actually a complex topic, with many issues to understand, and many that we still do not understand. However, as you become more educated in natural sciences, especially biology, geology, and organic chemistry, you will discover, that almost nothing about how living things actually work and exist in nature makes any sense without evolution. It is the one thing that makes the natural world make sense.</p></li>
<li><p>I am probably beating my head against a wall here, but I am hoping that at some point, perhaps a small amount of what we are telling you causes you to consider the possibility that it is possible that you are in-fact misinformed about this subject, and that it would be worth your time to consider the evidence in an objective way. Once you consider the evidence, and then assess counter arguments in light of the evidence, the correct answer will be obvious.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So it is believable that a one-celled organism could evolve into a monkey, an animal with a brain that can experience emotions, can jockey for position among a social group, can acquire a limited vocabulary (sign language), and has modest problem-solving abilities. Yet you find it impossible that monkeys could evolve into humans. </p>
<p>The juxtaposition of these two statements defies common sense.</p>
<p>Back from Sunday and Monday work and other things!</p>
<p>I said“no one challenge the fact that the Evolutionary Tree of Life is lacking of evidences to conclude that human and monkey has a common ancestor.”
Funny that there is still no one challenge that there is lacking of common ancestors in the Evolutionary Tree of Life. Mollibatmit was not addressing the issue at all but decided to go with other arguments.</p>
<p>I like how mollibatmit stated “evolution by natural selection was the best model available”. It is a MODEL that you think is the best. But not for me. While the building blocks are the same (think of the base lego elements are the same) one can create similar but different things. </p>
<p>When I mentioned “The genome sequencing comparison on Primates”, I was talking about the comparison between existing animals themselves and fossil records on their primate common ancestors and provide actual evidences on who comes first and who comes later; but since the fossil records of their common ancestors are totally lacking, it is nowhere to find the comparison. Even on comparison of genome sequencing of chimps, gorillas, and human there were Western lowland gorillas, southern lowland gorillas, other species of gorillas used… the problem is that it is hard to compare. (I am not stating that it is hard to compare the sequencing but hard to understand the true meaning. People can interpret data the ways they want.) The differences on Chimp and human are 1.37%, human and gorilla 1.75%, but did the gene deletions truly happened? (deletion is another topic, it is hard to define there was really deletions because they were lost in evolution or they never have existed for a new specie. That is a big question that no one addressed; and no one can address it because if it is the later than it is a new specie that didn’t come from previously existed species and not a product of evolution by natural selection.) </p>
<p>In the 2012 paper, the authors claimed humans and chimps went their separate ways only about 4.5 million years ago, but then some paleontologists argue for a split as far back as 7 million years ago. And all these years are estimated. Yes, estimated. And these estimated years can certainly affect the understanding of time sequence of a specie’s first appearance on earth.</p>
<p>And I like another scientist’s paper, he said ‘we propose ……’ and I can accept that. The model that Human evolution by natural selection is not convincing to me for now. Until it is totally convincing, I will continue to ask questions. Right now, the completely lack of common ancestor fossil records as so evident in the tree of life which had been built for 20 years with 3000+ contributors is more convincing to me.</p>
<p>Those who think the natural evolution MODEL is no problem at all, it’s your call, you have your belief. I will continue to ask questions until I am satisfied. I guess I can stop here. This discussion is never going to have a definite answer. :-)</p>