Originally posted by kevcvs57Oh so I see. No proof so your blowing me off. Well thanks anyway.
Then when someone goes to the bother of answering a question that could be found on wiki try not be quite so sarcastic in dismissing it incorrectly! It is childlike behaviourand does not belong in a discussion between adults..
As for your questions I refer you to my previous answer until you can raise a reasonable argument in response. If you think I a ...[text shortened]... t see evolution in real time you are in for a dissapointment. Btw the answer is in your question
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell they are just like us then as we engage in cruel sports and have a history of cannibalism.
they also hunt other primates for sport and practice canibalism.
do not mistake some instances where the apes "behave" with "omg thats totally empathy you guys, just like us".
pigeons, with the brains the size of a pea, behave nice. do they also have morality?
Originally posted by galveston75Neanderthals? Where do they fit into your scheme of things?
So what does that have to do with anything? That comment is always made but so what? There is still a huge amount of differances between us and apes and there is still NO missing link or the thousands of links that have never been found.
So are you an evolutionist or a believer in the Bible? You can't be both....
Neanderthal DNA has been found in the human genome, how did it get there when they've been extinct for nearly 30,000 years?
Originally posted by galveston75every individual in the chain is a "link." if you're expecting us to find the remains of every individual, you're raising your expectations too high. plenty of links have been found. there is no such thing as a specific "missing" link.
So what does that have to do with anything? That comment is always made but so what? There is still a huge amount of differances between us and apes and there is still NO missing link or the thousands of links that have never been found.
So are you an evolutionist or a believer in the Bible? You can't be both....
Originally posted by Proper Knobhttp://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals
Neanderthals? Where do they fit into your scheme of things?
Neanderthal DNA has been found in the human genome, how did it get there when they've been extinct for nearly 30,000 years?
Perhaps you should read this.....
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI agree. So where are even just a few, lets say a thousand missing links of the hundreds of millions or more that should be on this planet?
every individual in the chain is a "link." if you're expecting us to find the remains of every individual, you're raising your expectations too high. plenty of links have been found. there is no such thing as a specific "missing" link.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI try my best to explain my way of thinking on this:
No, I do not. If you object to my statement, then say so, and say why.
What I mean by the word “morality” is;
a system of behavioural rules ( either explicit rules or implicit rules ) for social conduct that are designed to conform to the principle that it is socially unacceptable to do X to somebody P who is in situation S if, on balance, and without any benefit of hindsight of the probability that you would end up in the same kind of situation S as that somebody P, you would prefer to live in a world where people generally would not do X to people in P's situation S than to live in a world where people generally would do X to people in P's situation S.
the above is my best-effort to date for a definition for the word “morality”.
lets allow a non-standard meaning of the words “people” or “person” in the above definition to allow them to include penguins or any animal capable of “morality”.
Do you think a penguin is likely to understand the concept of morality or have morality of the type I have defined above? -this would require a penguin to consciously or at least unconsciously form a set of social rules not based on blind instinct but rather based on what social rules it would want his/her penguin society ( if “society” it the right word ) to conform to that he/she is willing to conform to as well. I somehow think that is an unlikely thing for a penguin to think up -not that I really know what penguins think.
Of course, my definition, just like all definitions, is arbitrary and, ultimately, there isn't such thing as a truly objectively 'correct' definition of a word. You can define a word however you like given two constraints. I don't know what your definition would be of “morality” but providing it is logically consistent and proving it doesn't deviate too wildly from what most other people mean by the word then it should not be any more objectively 'correct' or 'incorrect' than mine.
I am just curious, what would be your definition of the word “morality” and how would it deviate from mine?
Originally posted by Proper KnobOh sure.
What exactly are you trying to show me here?
Can you highlight the relevant text for me.
"A second mtDNA sequence, announced in 2000, was derived from a 29,000 year old Neanderthal found in Mezmaiskaya Cave, Russia (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000). Although the Mezmaiskaya Cave sequence was slightly different than the Feldhofer Neanderthal, the two Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were distinct from those of modern humans. These results confirmed the earlier findings that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have contributed to the modern human genome. As with the previous study of Neanderthal mtDNA, results were consistent with separation between the Neanderthal and modern human gene pools or with very low amounts of gene flow between the two groups."
There is more so you really should read it all.
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75they have changed. it doesn't matter how much or how little. certain sharks have been around with little change over millions of years. if a species is successful in its niche, there is little opportunity for natural selection to take place.
Well they still seem to be bacteria today. Why have they not changed in the millions of years they've existed or if they have it has been very little
bacteria are very successful. they are probably the most successful living things on this planet.
And if evolution does not happen based on need, what is it based on, want or maybe curiosity?
none of those. it happens based on natural selection. and please don't tell me you never heard that one before. i'm beginning to think you're feigning ignorance on the topic.
And maybe bigger isn't always better but it sure helps if one is running for his life all the time.
you could develop other strategies for running away. like gliding, flying, climbing trees, or crawling on land or slithering into a hole in the ground or coating your skin in poison. different species have evolved different strategies.
So, the issue of somewhere in time some apelike ancestors of ours wondered out into the grasslands as was mentioned here, first why would they do that if they were more succesfull in a tree area where their longer arms and such worked just fine. All their food was there and obvious protection from being attacked?
It would seem they would have just stayed there to begin with and if they did wonder out to this new area they would have suffered greatly and no doubt would not have survived as it would have taken quite a long time to evolve into the appropriate being that would be able to survive out there. The needed changes would have to almost happen instantly to survive, don't you think?
what if the trees disappeared? environmental changes forces creatures to adapt or die. if they can adapt to the changes, they survive. if not, they go extinct. primates who left trees could still survive on plains, but they would have to develop other strategies for long term survival. over time, natural selection would favor those individuals who are better suited to plains survival.
I mean today we don't see the chimps moving out to the grasslands to check it out and see if they could survive out in the open and if they did I doubt many would make it back alive. So how could they have done it at anytime in the past and why would they even try?
environmental changes forces such things on species. other factors could be involved. an invasive species could evict them from their homes, overpopulation could force individuals to leave in search of food. there are in fact primates who have done that. they have adapted to live in grasslands and savannahs. have you read anything at all on the subject?
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I never offered proof, i posted a very patchy synopsis regarding part of our evolutionary past which I believe to be correct. The fact that you cannot, or will not respond to even this low level analysis other than to ask a question that is answered in the text is proof that you once again are not entering the debate with the correct attitude.
Oh so I see. No proof so your blowing me off. Well thanks anyway.
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Near the end of the article -
Oh sure.
"A second mtDNA sequence, announced in 2000, was derived from a 29,000 year old Neanderthal found in Mezmaiskaya Cave, Russia (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000). Although the Mezmaiskaya Cave sequence was slightly different than the Feldhofer Neanderthal, the two Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were distinct from those of modern humans. These results c ...[text shortened]... unts of gene flow between the two groups."
There is more so you really should read it all.
The draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome provides more evidence that interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred. It showed more similarities between non-African modern humans and Neanderthals than between African modern humans and Neanderthals. This difference between regions is consistent with interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of Eurasian modern humans before they branched off into regional groups. Approximately 1 to 4% of non-African modern human DNA is shared with Neanderthals.
I find it slightly odd that for someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Adam & Eve you should be referencing this website. It has a section called 'Human Evolution Timeline'?!
Originally posted by kevcvs57Well that may be true but why would I feel any differently as I just asked for proof which is all I want and something I've never seen presented in regards to evolution.
I never offered proof, i posted a very patchy synopsis regarding part of our evolutionary past which I believe to be correct. The fact that you cannot, or will not respond to even this low level analysis other than to ask a question that is answered in the text is proof that you once again are not entering the debate with the correct attitude.
This thread is discussing some similarities between animals and humans and that is a fact on some things. But that proves nothing other then the creator made all life from his plans and that we could enjoy and coexist with all life, especially ones with a higher level of intelligence. He did that so we could not only enjoy them but so we could train them to help us such as the elephant with it's strength.
If we had no connection what so ever then we would have a difficult time coexisting with any of them.
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Because most ( but not all ) missing links didn't survive unchanged to the modern day and many came completely extinct ( so we only have fossils of those ones ) although also many have close living relatives living in the modern day not too dissimilar from the actual missing link that once lived but are still not exactly the same species and the missing link itself had come extinct.
I agree. So where are even just a few, lets say a thousand missing links of the hundreds of millions or more that should be on this planet?