Apes and evolution

Originally posted by @whodey
Darwin actually thought of black people as inferior to whites.

In his mind, they were between an ape and a human being.

Quotes, please.

Originally posted by @chaney3
Go to the zoo.
Look at a monkey.
That monkey should be a human according to Darwin.

Quotes, please. Where/when did Darwin say this?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Where/when did Darwin say this?

We know the answer; he didn't.. I just hate it when stupid people idiotically make up total rubbish like that.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Quotes, please.

Unlike a typical whodey claim, this one appears to hold some grain of truth:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

The Descent of Man, p200-201

Charles Darwin was not aware of the existence of DNA, so he could not have known that the various "races" of man are in fact highly similar and show less genetic diversity than is found in e.g. chimps.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Unlike a typical whodey claim, this one appears to hold some grain of truth:

[quote]The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not ...[text shortened]... of man are in fact highly similar and show less genetic diversity than is found in e.g. chimps.

Thanks for the quote!

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Careful... careful...

I am just illustrating their logic.

Originally posted by @eladar
According to the Bible, slavery is acceptable.

As to the question of evolution. ..

Is it reproducible? Has anyone actually seen it happen? I mean maco version of course.

Can evolution explain life without abiogenesis?

There are many lines of direct evidence for evolution:

Anatomy (i.e. homologous structures)
Molecular biology ( DNA and the genetic code)
Biogeography (The global distribution of organisms)
Fossils. (duh)
Direct observation. (in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g. anti-bacterial resistance)). I believe also that macroevolutionary speciation events have been observed in plants as well, although I'm not an expert on that stuff.

There's too many converging lines of evidence for evolution to be wrong as we understand it. Obviously though these concepts are refined over time, and Darwin wasn't right about everything. If you use a multi-disciplinary approach, combining/comparing evolutionary data from multiple sources (fossil records to estimate speciation events, nucleotide differences between species, and observed rates of mutation) they can consistently predict genetic rates of change. These results are highly reproducible among different speciation events.

You're asking a lot of a scientific theory, though, if you want it to explain life.

Originally posted by @chaney3
No apes, chimps or orangutan should exist today.

They should all be human.

Why?
Apes evolved according to their environment.

Originally posted by @chaney3
What does evolve mean?
Apes evolved into human. Right?

Yet...apes still exist.

Evolution is wrong.

Nope.

You have no idea of EVOLUTION.

chaney3 starts out a new monster thread about things he doesn't care to understand.
For him the ultimate proof is his saying "I am right!" 😕

Originally posted by @chaney3
If humans evolved from apes, as absurd as that theory is, then NO apes should exist today. They should all be human.

Evolution is absurd

Let me simplify this for you:

All apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor that is now extinct.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Let me simplify this for you:

All apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor that is now extinct.

We have already told him this.
He as no ability to learn anything that goes against his weird religious beliefs.
He knows everything already, he thinks. As he already sits in the lap of god. 😕

Originally posted by @chaney3
If humans evolved from apes, as absurd as that theory is, then NO apes should exist today. They should all be human.

Evolution is absurd

If you were born from your parents, your brothers and sisters should not exist.

Same logic.

Originally posted by @chaney3
If humans evolved from apes, as absurd as that theory is, then NO apes should exist today. They should all be human.

Evolution is absurd

Apparently this silly troll bait has to be dragged out every now and then.

Originally posted by @js357
Apparently this silly troll bait has to be dragged out every now and then.

Yeah, like Chaney is such an absolute expert on all things evolutionary he can make sweeping statements like, thinking he is 100% correct since his Phd thesis covered this subject and he proved Darwin wrong to his college boards. Amazing, eh. I really want to see that thesis paper.