- Aug 21, 2012
- 2,325
- 643
The common ancestry is well known in science. And no, I'm not using AI as a reference. The AI in question belongs to Google and offers up information based on summarizing search results. Here are scientific links you can check out to back what I told you. I'm going to reply to both you and Perfection in this response so I hope they see it too.
"Evidence from fossils, proteins and genetic studies indicates that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor millions of years ago. Most scientists believe that the ‘human’ family tree (known as the sub-group hominin) split from the chimpanzees and other apes about five to seven million years ago."
And you mention @Perfection but they are biased and specifically talking about "recent ancestry". Evolution is about a process that occurs over the course of millions of years. Therefore it goes beyond "recent ancestry" which @Perfection, with all due respect, is stuck on.
Even if you buy into the credential of "a" person who claims to have a background in science, when we talk about science we're not talking about individuals but rather what is the consensus of the scientific community. So if you want to attack me or whatever, that's fine. But I'm only telling you what the consensus of SCIENCE is actually saying. Here's another reference... (no worries, I'll supply more) It is because I'm not new to this debate that I made certain statements and pointed out certain facts for the sake of clarity. You'll see the same in this article:
Did Humans Evolve From Monkeys? Human Evolution Explained
Since Charles Darwin published the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, myths and misinterpretations have eroded public understanding of his ideas. Ready to take another look at one of the related questions that just won't die?science.howstuffworks.com
Once you have read this article there should be NO QUESTION where real biologists stand on the subject. This is not an attempt to discredit @Perfection's credentials or education. But it is dishonest to substitute statements from them to represent science. That's not how science works. You can't just say the sky is green if you disagree then you're under the influence of white supremacy. Science has no need to use such rhetorical arguments because it doesn't exist by way of what people can say but rather what can be proven repeatedly. So read the article and you'll understand.
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent, all the way back to the last universal common ancestor, by developing testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and constructing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
@Perfection
You say Neil isn't a biologist. That's fair. I'm sure he would agree. However, by the same token you are not an evolutionary biologist. Nor are the credentials or education of your children terribly relevant to your credibility, your education, or your knowledge of evolution or the subject of common ancestry. I'm not even confident you understand the concept since you keep making references to more recent ancestors. This is like saying "Your grandfather certainly was a tall man but your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather never existed and you can't prove he did". Logically, this is a nonsensical non sequitur. In order for recent ancestors to exist they had to come from earlier/older ancestors. And their ancestors came from somewhere too. You cannot unilaterally decide when to cut off the line of ancestry and insert "God" into that gap. Because that's what you're trying to do. But you're not looking at the DNA of all life. You're only looking at and studying the genetics of our more recent ancestors. How do I know this? Because you're not an evolutionary biologist. I am not either, but that's why I get my information from their findings.
And they say:
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Genetic fragments such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations support common descent alongside the universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns found in all organisms. Additional genetic information conclusively supports the relatedness of life and has allowed scientists (since the discovery of DNA) to develop phylogenetic trees: a construction of organisms' evolutionary relatedness. It has also led to the development of molecular clock techniques to date taxon divergence times and to calibrate these with the fossil record.
Let's go to a specific example I used to use against Evolution when I was a Christian (and biased in favor of the Genesis creation myth).
I argued (as a teenager) that Evolution was impossible due to the complexity of the human eye. I was wrong. But it goes further than that.
quote: For example, although camera-like eyes are believed to have evolved independently on many separate occasions,[6] they share a common set of light-sensing proteins (opsins), suggesting a common point of origin for all sighted creatures
What I didn't understand when I was a young Christian was that there are previous versions of "eyes" as an entire construct. And the ability to sense light, if allowed to be its own system that can evolve, means that different species could take the same system, have different needs or environmental conditions through which to develop that need, and the ability to sense light can grow in complexity, leading to more complex eyes. You are so used to different organisms having eyes that you don't think about why they do or where they came from. The easiest answer that prevents us from truly thinking critically is when we simply believe "God did it". This "answer" removes our need to think or investigate further and so we don't. This is why a biologist may have limits that an evolutionary biologist doesn't have. But other biologists accept the research, testing, and results and therefore the consensus is in support of what evolutionary biologists have found to be true.
quote: For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[10][11] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.
Again... I want to make this clear. ANCESTRY means that we DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS but rather we BOTH came from a common ancestor. The fact that there is a 6.6% difference with baboons shows how close we are to primates in general but even closer to certain ones. So we don't need cute videos of monkey business. We just need a numeric representation of the difference between our DNA and I've showed this from the Wikipedia article.
Here's more evidence:
(proof from Endogenous Retroviruses)
There's a chance one or both you will not watch this video that absolutely proves Evolution and common ancestry through DNA I will summarize briefly so that the only way to determine if my summary is accurate is for you to watch the video yourself which I highly recommend anyway.
The video is trying to explain that all species get infected by viruses. When that happens (retroviruses) the virus leaves a sequence in our DNA. And we can pass this sequence on to our kids. When that happens, its in the very same spot in both our DNA code. If you and your pet are both infected at the same time by the same retrovirus it is NOT going to attach to the exact same place in your DNA. That means that the chances of having multiple endogenous retrovirus DNA sequences matching up is statistically impossible unless you're in the same family. So the proof of evolution has been copied by DNA. If you want to say you studied DNA... fine. Have you studied the DNA of chimps? Feel free to look for yourself. But if you are a biologist you should understand the weight and meaning of the information you have just been provided. You can do with it what you will but please don't try to dispute it without resources and a very good explanation. This isn't even the "junk DNA" argument I normally use. This is DNA that we know the purpose of so we know how it got there.
You're all over the place. So much so, you're getting me confused with your discussion with Ms. Dove.
But even in your response to Ms. Dove, you haven't answered my question so I will just drop it because you obviously can't fill in the blank. No worries, just keep practicing you'll become better as a defense writer. (black thumbs-up).