Hippos eveolved from cetaceans

[Frodo]

Objective truth? Subjective opinion? We come back to square one again. You believe in the bible as truth, I don't. It depends on who we accept as the judge. In certain "primitive" societies, cannibalism was practiced, and wasn't considered wrong, in our present societies, it is a crime. Times have changed, and so has our perception, or at least the majority.

Our present day interpretation of evolution of animals is that life started sometime ago as a single celled organism, and evolved subsequently into the various branches of animals and plants. Man's evolution pathway is suspected to be along the lines of primates and apes and branched off late in the game. I do not know about God's image. I do not know what God looks like. The renaissance artists' impression of God depict him with human features. Our earlier civilisations believed that heavenly deities can, and do interact with mortal beings here on Earth. Somehow, this practice has stopped. The God(s) don't exist anymore.

Cheers!

I don't think you have grasp the distinction between belief and truth. If the Bible is true, then it is true whether you believe it or not and vice versa. And if you subscribe to relative morality you have absolutely no basis to judge anything or anyone. I have yet to meet a consistent relativist. Such a person may sound enlightened to nondiscerning people but his position is on quick sand and the relativist is quick to jettison his belief when challenged.

A belief is not the same as an interpretation. What you have mentioned is the BELIEF about origins. There is nothing and no evidence to interpret to arrive at the conclusion that life comes from a single celled organism. A first single or simple cell organism is proposed because to the simple minded :p it is more acceptable and easier to believe that things start out as simple and become more complex later on since there is no intelligent designer allowed to complicate things. LOL!

Just because anatomically apes and humans look similar the simple minded:p began to imagine that both are related. Yes they are, but not biologically or historically by lineage, but because they have a common designer! Living things that look similar will share common things (even have similar DNA) but it is fallacious to conclude that therefore they are related in ancestry or lineage. So far the evidence for human evolution from ape-men has been pathetic, the missing links are still missing. LOL!

BTW, God's image does not mean God's physical look. If you think this way then it again shows how unacquainted you are with Christian theology and belief. BTW, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! In any case, there have been testimonies of God acting in the lives of people. You can of course choose to think that these are all deluded and fake if that is a more convenient way to explain...or rather dismiss things simply because your mind is already made up about there being no God.

 

[Frodo]

My opinion on why the Bible was written, and compiled the way it was ...................... is for political reason; Rome's. To make Christianity it's "official" religion, it had to be seen as truthful, and good. The Jewish old testament predicted the coming of a Messiah, which the character of Jesus suited fine, so they put it together to support that person to fulfil the prediction. In doing this, they (the authority) also conveniently left out the other books written about the person Jesus (eg. Gospel of Mary). So when Rome made Christianity its official religion, that took care of the growing rebellion. Christians (now comprising the Gentiles, the largest non-Roman group under Roman rule) became subservient and obedient, and compliant to the ethics and kindness taught by the book, became much easier to rule. I do not see the Bible as a book to look to for explaining our world. it is a book for the purpose of promoting Christianity.

Cheers!

A cool story bro, but one that hopelessly breaks down when put under the spotlight. We've been down this road before, and remember the troll answers you gave when I questioned your view on this?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Didn't mean to place you in the same boat, I observed the below from a conversation with a Christian here when he said the bible is true. I didn't want to get into a long debate with him.

The current human evolution thought only states that the great apes like chimpanzee and gorillas are the closest relatives to humans because 97% or so of our DNAs are similar. The "closest" among all other animals we know today. That doesn't mean we came from them, but that somewhere along the evo lines, we share a common ancestor. And that split may have come about when our ancestors will still arboreal in habit.

The way the bible is worded may have misled many humans to mis/interprete it. Images of God is depicted as an elderly, bearded senior male (much like a Harley-Davidson biker). If the bible is true, then we are similar to God in spiritual form, not physical form.

Cheers!

I don't think you have grasp the distinction between belief and truth. If the Bible is true, then it is true whether you believe it or not and vice versa. And if you subscribe to relative morality you have absolutely no basis to judge anything or anyone. I have yet to meet a consistent relativist. Such a person may sound enlightened to nondiscerning people but his position is on quick sand and the relativist is quick to jettison his belief when challenged.

A belief is not the same as an interpretation. What you have mentioned is the BELIEF about origins. There is nothing and no evidence to interpret to arrive at the conclusion that life comes from a single celled organism. A first single or simple cell organism is proposed because to the simple minded :p it is more acceptable and easier to believe that things start out as simple and become more complex later on since there is no intelligent designer allowed to complicate things. LOL!

Just because anatomically apes and humans look similar the simple minded:p began to imagine that both are related. Yes they are, but not biologically or historically by lineage, but because they have a common designer! Living things that look similar will share common things (even have similar DNA) but it is fallacious to conclude that therefore they are related in ancestry or lineage. So far the evidence for human evolution from ape-men has been pathetic, the missing links are still missing. LOL!

BTW, God's image does not mean God's physical look. If you think this way then it again shows how unacquainted you are with Christian theology and belief. BTW, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! In any case, there have been testimonies of God acting in the lives of people. You can of course choose to think that these are all deluded and fake if that is a more convenient way to explain...or rather dismiss things simply because your mind is already made up about there being no God.

 

[Frodo]

Didn't mean to place you in the same boat, I observed the below from a conversation with a Christian here when he said the bible is true. I didn't want to get into a long debate with him.

The current human evolution thought only states that the great apes like chimpanzee and gorillas are the closest relatives to humans because 97% or so of our DNAs are similar. The "closest" among all other animals we know today. That doesn't mean we came from them, but that somewhere along the evo lines, we share a common ancestor. And that split may have come about when our ancestors will still arboreal in habit.

The way the bible is worded may have misled many humans to mis/interprete it. Images of God is depicted as an elderly, bearded senior male (much like a Harley-Davidson biker). If the bible is true, then we are similar to God in spiritual form, not physical form.

Cheers!

What we have today are apes and humans. And what evolutionists BELIEVE is that apes and humans are connected via a common ancestor a long time ago for which there is NO EVIDENCE at all. It's just a belief! Of course you can believe that if you like. You can say there was a split, but was there? What's the evidence?

Actually there is no misreading of the Bible at all if one is a diligent student of the Bible. The Bible already say God is a spirit and cannot be seen and has no flesh and bones. So using a bit of reasoning one should easily conclude that "image of God" does not mean a physical image, but a spiritual one. An image is a reflection of something else, and should not be confused with that which is being reflected. When someone says you reflect your mother, it is not meant that you are your mother, which makes no sense! It just means that there are certain traits of your mother that are also found in you.

 

[Agoraphobic]

The following was pasted from Wiki. It is the latest from the study of human evolution (from about 13 million years ago):

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is believed to be a common ancestor of humans and the great apes or at least a species that brings us closer to a common ancestor than any previous fossil discovery. It had special adaptations for tree climbing, just as humans and other great apes do: a wide, flat rib cage, a stiff lower spine, flexible wrists, and shoulder blades that lie along its back.

Cheers!

What we have today are apes and humans. And what evolutionists BELIEVE is that apes and humans are connected via a common ancestor a long time ago for which there is NO EVIDENCE at all. It's just a belief! Of course you can believe that if you like. You can say there was a split, but was there? What's the evidence?

............................

 

[Frodo]

The following was pasted from Wiki. It is the latest from the study of human evolution (from about 13 million years ago):

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is believed to be a common ancestor of humans and the great apes or at least a species that brings us closer to a common ancestor than any previous fossil discovery. It had special adaptations for tree climbing, just as humans and other great apes do: a wide, flat rib cage, a stiff lower spine, flexible wrists, and shoulder blades that lie along its back.

Cheers!

LOL! If you remove the evolutionary slant on the whole thing, what you really have is just a BELIEF (just like what is admitted in the Wiki text!), and what you have is just an ape. Not only that, you also need to ask exactly WHAT fossil evidence they have for this so-called new link. Chances are it is just a small piece here or a small piece there. An objective answer, based on the imaginative reconstruction of the evolutionists themselves, would be that it is just an ape, an extinct ape. But evolutionists tend to go bananas over such things. Make the sensational claims first, then later simmer down and keep quiet. This is the usual pattern. LOL!

 

[Agoraphobic]

This is "believed" because they based on studies and observations collected from scraps of bone and teeth dug out from the ground. By piecing these evidence together, and putting two and two together, the researchers develop some kind of idea based on these very sketchy evidence. It may not be definite, or conclusive, but it is based on the evidence we are able to gather, leftovers from millions of years exposed to the elements. To separate ape from Home, I believe this is based on bipedalism, and is observed from the shape of the pelvis. The relative sizes of the different teeth, will help determine whether the specimen was a meat eater, or a fruit eater. We accept that early Homo resorted to scavenging when they started eating flesh. They are also compared with skeleton and bones from known apes and man, existing and extinct. It is from hard work and dedication that these "conclusions" came about, whilst these may not be definite proof to everyone, they are more scientific, and logical in explaining how we came about than the bible.. For those whose work and lives are in these fields, they are indeed sensational, to others, its just supporting news. You should be paying some attention rather than laughing gleefully.

Cheers!

LOL! If you remove the evolutionary slant on the whole thing, what you really have is just a BELIEF (just like what is admitted in the Wiki text!), and what you have is just an ape. Not only that, you also need to ask exactly WHAT fossil evidence they have for this so-called new link. Chances are it is just a small piece here or a small piece there. An objective answer, based on the imaginative reconstruction of the evolutionists themselves, would be that it is just an ape, an extinct ape. But evolutionists tend to go bananas over such things. Make the sensational claims first, then later simmer down and keep quiet. This is the usual pattern. LOL!

 

[Frodo]

This is "believed" because they based on studies and observations collected from scraps of bone and teeth dug out from the ground. By piecing these evidence together, and putting two and two together, the researchers develop some kind of idea based on these very sketchy evidence. It may not be definite, or conclusive, but it is based on the evidence we are able to gather, leftovers from millions of years exposed to the elements. To separate ape from Home, I believe this is based on bipedalism, and is observed from the shape of the pelvis. The relative sizes of the different teeth, will help determine whether the specimen was a meat eater, or a fruit eater. We accept that early Homo resorted to scavenging when they started eating flesh. They are also compared with skeleton and bones from known apes and man, existing and extinct. It is from hard work and dedication that these "conclusions" came about, whilst these may not be definite proof to everyone, they are more scientific, and logical in explaining how we came about than the bible.. For those whose work and lives are in these fields, they are indeed sensational, to others, its just supporting news. You should be paying some attention rather than laughing gleefully.

Cheers!

It is BELIEVED simply because the physical evidence is scanty and much else is imagined! Yet you say this is scientific? LOL! Anyway, this is hardly scientific because nothing can be tested or repeated in the lab to prove anything. You need to know what kind of science you are dealing with. You don't seem to make needed distinctions where necessary.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, this "scanty" evidence might be what the scientists have to propose their hypothesis. It is still more telling than a story told from a page(s) of some text, of which there are NO physical evidence.What are you expecting from pieces of bones MILLIONS of years old? It is already good enough that they have some kind of clue from which they propose what could have been.

Cheers!

It is BELIEVED simply because the physical evidence is scanty and much else is imagined! Yet you say this is scientific? LOL! Anyway, this is hardly scientific because nothing can be tested or repeated in the lab to prove anything. You need to know what kind of science you are dealing with. You don't seem to make needed distinctions where necessary.

 

[Frodo]

Fren, this "scanty" evidence might be what the scientists have to propose their hypothesis. It is still more telling than a story told from a page(s) of some text, of which there are NO physical evidence.What are you expecting from pieces of bones MILLIONS of years old? It is already good enough that they have some kind of clue from which they propose what could have been.

Cheers!

Was recently at the Singapore Science Centre and the definition of hypothesis was "an idea to explain a specific observation, but without proof. A scientific hypothesis should be capable of being tested and proven wrong".

What you have are the scanty pieces of evidence, from which you tell a story about human evolution. I can use those very same evidence to tell a different story. You said I use the Bible, well yes. But you are using human ignorance. Using the Bible I will say that these evidences would be nothing more than an extinct ape. You would agree, but add the CSB that this ape is either the ancestor of man, or shared a common ancestor with man. Now this hypothesis is made without proof, and cannot be tested and proven wrong. So if you still think it is scientific, that would be very unscientific of you to say that.

Were those bones really millions of years old? That's the very thing being debated, but you just assume them to be true, and that's the fallacy of question begging. That's no clue at all. I submit it to you, that whatever evidence you have on hand to say it is proof of evolution, a better interpretation can be given as evidence FOR creation.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I am not in the position, nor am I qualified to decide how legit these claims are. However, before being published, the works/discoveries of the researcher will have to be scrutinized and debated by others with knowledge in that field (eg. anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, etc.) And after it gone through that process and validated, then its claims can be accepted. It may be right, it may be wrong, but at least its been scrutinized as thoroughly as we're able to at the time of discovery. It is not made up from wild guess(es).

Cheers!

Was recently at the Singapore Science Centre and the definition of hypothesis was "an idea to explain a specific observation, but without proof. A scientific hypothesis should be capable of being tested and proven wrong".

What you have are the scanty pieces of evidence, from which you tell a story about human evolution. I can use those very same evidence to tell a different story. You said I use the Bible, well yes. But you are using human ignorance. Using the Bible I will say that these evidences would be nothing more than an extinct ape. You would agree, but add the CSB that this ape is either the ancestor of man, or shared a common ancestor with man. Now this hypothesis is made without proof, and cannot be tested and proven wrong. So if you still think it is scientific, that would be very unscientific of you to say that.

Were those bones really millions of years old? That's the very thing being debated, but you just assume them to be true, and that's the fallacy of question begging. That's no clue at all. I submit it to you, that whatever evidence you have on hand to say it is proof of evolution, a better interpretation can be given as evidence FOR creation.

 

[Frodo]

I am not in the position, nor am I qualified to decide how legit these claims are. However, before being published, the works/discoveries of the researcher will have to be scrutinized and debated by others with knowledge in that field (eg. anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, etc.) And after it gone through that process and validated, then its claims can be accepted. It may be right, it may be wrong, but at least its been scrutinized as thoroughly as we're able to at the time of discovery. It is not made up from wild guess(es).

Cheers!

Tell me, from what you read and the picture you saw of this thing, does it look like an ape? The best minds you believe in came up with an ape.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Most of what I read are from magazines and internet. I also come across these things from visits to places like Science Centre. These "creatures" we discuss here, are from bones found at excavations, and the scientists can only look at them, and compare them with other pieces of similar type parts. Sometimes, they may run some tests like carbon-dating. There is no way for them to visualize if the creature was hairy or less hairy. Much of the deductions arise from group discussions. An example is the nature of dinosaur surface covering - whether its scales, or feathers. From assembling the bones, they form a picture of the animal, and then they compare with what is known in the animal world today, and draw conclusions from there.

The "best minds" available today have to earn that ranking through study and research in that field. It may not be up to your "standard" of professionalism, but I would trust them more than those at the Vatican who kept that piece of cloth known as the Shroud of Turin, which turned out to be a hoax. They lied all these years! Or centuries!

Cheers!

Tell me, from what you read and the picture you saw of this thing, does it look like an ape? The best minds you believe in came up with an ape.

 

[Frodo]

Most of what I read are from magazines and internet. I also come across these things from visits to places like Science Centre. These "creatures" we discuss here, are from bones found at excavations, and the scientists can only look at them, and compare them with other pieces of similar type parts. Sometimes, they may run some tests like carbon-dating. There is no way for them to visualize if the creature was hairy or less hairy. Much of the deductions arise from group discussions. An example is the nature of dinosaur surface covering - whether its scales, or feathers. From assembling the bones, they form a picture of the animal, and then they compare with what is known in the animal world today, and draw conclusions from there.

The "best minds" available today have to earn that ranking through study and research in that field. It may not be up to your "standard" of professionalism, but I would trust them more than those at the Vatican who kept that piece of cloth known as the Shroud of Turin, which turned out to be a hoax. They lied all these years! Or centuries!

Cheers!

I have no idea why you bring up the Vatican or Turin Shroud, it is irrelevant to what is being discussed. Besides I am not Roman Catholic, so wherever you are going with this, it's not working on me.

You seemed to have evaded my question. I asked whether your creature, in your best minds, was an ape. Perhaps different people see different things, but the picture in the Wiki link seems to depict an ape. Do you agree? Again I don't know what tests they run or what they have discussed or compared to arrive at the final picture, whether it is 1% evidence and 99% guesswork or some other figures, but the bottom line is that...it's an ape! I have no problems accepting that it's an ape. But any CSB that it is our ancestor or share our ancestor is pure evolutionary storytelling with no shred of proof. And that is not even a scientific hypothesis!

 

[Agoraphobic]

I brought up the Shroud of Turin because you asked my how I could trust the researchers/scientists who work on the bones. I was comparing the "trust" we afford to the sources of information. The keepers of the Shroud I suppose would be where the information bible adherents receive their cue from. Not directing at the Roman Catholic organization in particular, they just happen to be the longest surviving organization in this field.

Depends on how you choose to define "ape." To my understanding, Greater Apes would be Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Orang Utan, Bonobo, and Human. The Lesser Ape would be Siamang and Gibbons. I think our discussion here would refer more to "apelike" creatures. I am not an anthropologist, nor biologist, but the two creatures that I describe as pre-homo ancestors would be Australopithecus, and Homo Erectus, both found in the eastern African plains. These were already bipedal creatures and are closer to us, modern humans, developed and used tools, communicated via some kind of vocal speech, and lived in social groups. Our current understanding of their existence is founded on scientific fact, more than hypothesis. You can check the internet for them. Just type Human Evolution and read it if you wish.

Cheers!

I have no idea why you bring up the Vatican or Turin Shroud, it is irrelevant to what is being discussed. Besides I am not Roman Catholic, so wherever you are going with this, it's not working on me.

You seemed to have evaded my question. I asked whether your creature, in your best minds, was an ape. Perhaps different people see different things, but the picture in the Wiki link seems to depict an ape. Do you agree? Again I don't know what tests they run or what they have discussed or compared to arrive at the final picture, whether it is 1% evidence and 99% guesswork or some other figures, but the bottom line is that...it's an ape! I have no problems accepting that it's an ape. But any CSB that it is our ancestor or share our ancestor is pure evolutionary storytelling with no shred of proof. And that is not even a scientific hypothesis!

 

[Frodo]

I brought up the Shroud of Turin because you asked my how I could trust the researchers/scientists who work on the bones. I was comparing the "trust" we afford to the sources of information. The keepers of the Shroud I suppose would be where the information bible adherents receive their cue from. Not directing at the Roman Catholic organization in particular, they just happen to be the longest surviving organization in this field.

Depends on how you choose to define "ape." To my understanding, Greater Apes would be Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Orang Utan, Bonobo, and Human. The Lesser Ape would be Siamang and Gibbons. I think our discussion here would refer more to "apelike" creatures. I am not an anthropologist, nor biologist, but the two creatures that I describe as pre-homo ancestors would be Australopithecus, and Homo Erectus, both found in the eastern African plains. These were already bipedal creatures and are closer to us, modern humans, developed and used tools, communicated via some kind of vocal speech, and lived in social groups. Our current understanding of their existence is founded on scientific fact, more than hypothesis. You can check the internet for them. Just type Human Evolution and read it if you wish.

Cheers!

There's a big difference between what you think the Vatican is doing with the Shroud and what the evolutionists are doing with the pieces of bones. If you can say that the Shroud is fake and Vatican was lying through the teeth, that's because you CAN test the article. For the ape-man claim, how do you test it? You can't. Like I said, your best minds came up with nothing more than an ape even from such scanty hard evidence. If that is their conclusion then I have no problem with that. The problem is that they made the absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC claim that this ape is either our ancestor or shared a common ancestor. Can you test that? No way!

Claims that they are proto-humans or apelike or humanlike is purely spinning evolution web. I repeat, you CANNOT test it in anyway. It is a BELIEF, period. To call it science fact reveals complete ignorance of what the scientific method is. What you have is merely a BELIEF and interpretation about what the fossil means through a grand story of origins.

 

[Agoraphobic]

It may not be sufficient proof for you, but it is nevertheless based on observations, data, and logical deductions from these pieces of bones, or fossils. It is NOT based on wild guesses or someone's personal imagination. When Darwin first came up with the theory of evolution, we thought that man came from ape, but now that we have advanced a little more, gained knowledge of DNA and other biological facts, we have brushed aside that earlier notion and instead propose that the chimpanzee and human share a common ancestor. We progress in our thoughts as we gain more knowledge. And goes on. It may be wrong, but the scientific community is open to question our findings, discoveries, and ideas. Because knowledge is not static. We keep discovering new stuff as we go on.

This is not the case with religious zealots who adhere stubbornly to the gospel, unable to see beyond what they have been told as "truth." They have actually been blinded by their faith.

Cheers!

There's a big difference between what you think the Vatican is doing with the Shroud and what the evolutionists are doing with the pieces of bones. If you can say that the Shroud is fake and Vatican was lying through the teeth, that's because you CAN test the article. For the ape-man claim, how do you test it? You can't. Like I said, your best minds came up with nothing more than an ape even from such scanty hard evidence. If that is their conclusion then I have no problem with that. The problem is that they made the absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC claim that this ape is either our ancestor or shared a common ancestor. Can you test that? No way!

Claims that they are proto-humans or apelike or humanlike is purely spinning evolution web. I repeat, you CANNOT test it in anyway. It is a BELIEF, period. To call it science fact reveals complete ignorance of what the scientific method is. What you have is merely a BELIEF and interpretation about what the fossil means through a grand story of origins.

 

[Frodo]

It may not be sufficient proof for you, but it is nevertheless based on observations, data, and logical deductions from these pieces of bones, or fossils. It is NOT based on wild guesses or someone's personal imagination. When Darwin first came up with the theory of evolution, we thought that man came from ape, but now that we have advanced a little more, gained knowledge of DNA and other biological facts, we have brushed aside that earlier notion and instead propose that the chimpanzee and human share a common ancestor. We progress in our thoughts as we gain more knowledge. And goes on. It may be wrong, but the scientific community is open to question our findings, discoveries, and ideas. Because knowledge is not static. We keep discovering new stuff as we go on.

This is not the case with religious zealots who adhere stubbornly to the gospel, unable to see beyond what they have been told as "truth." They have actually been blinded by their faith.

Cheers!

What they actually found was

And they came up with

and they called it an "ancient ape". IMO it was an ape, period. Any other deduction, whether you think it is logical or not, is mere speculation and evolution spin. How you get from the hard evidence to that in the picture? A lot of imagination and guesswork went into it. Anyway, you are right, we are still discovering more stuff. But here's a creationist prediction for you, what we discover will be either ape OR human, not ape-man. In fact, Marvin Lubenow has written a book on this http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/bones-of-contention-revised-and-updated-edition/142791

BTW, your last bit about blinded by faith. Are you saying that believers are blinded by faith in the Gospels in the same way that believers in evolution are blinded by faith in the evolution story? I mean, I see that you also stubbornly adhere to the evolution story and have showed no critical view towards it at all.

 

[drifteri]

It may not be sufficient proof for you, but it is nevertheless based on observations, data, and logical deductions from these pieces of bones, or fossils. It is NOT based on wild guesses or someone's personal imagination. When Darwin first came up with the theory of evolution, we thought that man came from ape, but now that we have advanced a little more, gained knowledge of DNA and other biological facts, we have brushed aside that earlier notion and instead propose that the chimpanzee and human share a common ancestor. We progress in our thoughts as we gain more knowledge. And goes on. It may be wrong, but the scientific community is open to question our findings, discoveries, and ideas. Because knowledge is not static. We keep discovering new stuff as we go on.

This is not the case with religious zealots who adhere stubbornly to the gospel, unable to see beyond what they have been told as "truth." They have actually been blinded by their faith.

Cheers!

This is the real scientific link, http://phys.org/news/2013-05-million-year-old-fossil-great-ape-evolution.html

Besides fossil, chromosome, protein, gnome evidences: http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?202996-Islam-News!-Evidence-of-common-descent-Chromosome-2!

 

[Frodo]

This is the real scientific link, http://phys.org/news/2013-05-million-year-old-fossil-great-ape-evolution.html

Besides fossil, chromosome, protein, gnome evidences: http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?202996-Islam-News!-Evidence-of-common-descent-Chromosome-2!

Scientific illiterate DIVA dare to talk science??? Excuse my LOL!!!