If man evolved from monkeys, where are the monkeys that half-evolved into men?

[edthecynic]

You find me the law that says choas evolves into order.

You would have to believe that can happen if you are an atheist.

Or a chemist!!!

 

[edthecynic]

I am very sure I know more about evolution than you do.

1. Evolution is a theory that has an abundance of evidence to support it, which is why every reputable scientist in any field of study related to evolution and biology believes it to be true. To demand proof of evolution is an impossibility, and if you know as much about science and evolution as you claim then you would certainly know that. Which means either you are a creationist or you are trying to rile people up. Which begs the question: do you believe in creationism?

2. Anthropologists have been looking for the so-called missing link between man and apes for a long time. The fact that they have not found it does not invalidate the possibility that such exists, they have found hominids that are fairly close though. Are you proposing that homo sapiens could not have evolved from apes and monkeys? If you want to say that it didn't happen that way, God did it, you're entitled to that opinion or theory. However, there's no proof of that either and far less evidence than there is for the theory of evolution.

3. If you know as much about the idea of evolution as you say, then you know that some animals have adapted and evolved more than others, for a number of reasons. At some point in time, some hominids came down out of the trees and started walking around on 2 feet and some stayed in the trees but still managed to avoid extinction. They didn't have to evolve any further than what they pretty much already were to survive. Early humans did, as evidenced by so many earlier species of homo that died out. We adapted into who and what we are today. So maybe there never was a half monkey, half man, or if there was it didn't offer any survival benefits. Which means there may not have been many half monkey, half-man individuals for us to find remains for.

When you say I have to believe in evolution because "every reputable scientist" believes it, then I grow suspicious that you are imposing an orthodoxy.

Well what is your alternate theory? We don't have another theory as good as evolution. Not even close. Can you name one other theory?

I believe in an evolution that is guided by an intelligence.

I do not believe that evolution, without guidance, would have ever evolved a human being.

I can't believe that evolution, with guidance, would have guided development of a platypus.

You beat me to it!!!

 

[Vastator]

and the laws of physics say it is impossible.

If you're referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that, "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.". But evolution isn't an isolated system. Spontaneous genetic mutation is caused by influences from outside the reproductive system.

A gene cannot create new advancements in nature. It can only lose them. A gene of X length cannot become X+1 and still work.

A gene is sequence of nucleotides that are arranged helically to form chromosomes. There is no physical limit to the number of genes that can be combined to form longer chromosomes. The human genome contains almost 20,000 genes. The hepatitis B virus contains less than 4,000 genes.

We are talking about a few genes going to 20,000 naturally. Laws of nature say it's impossible. Not improbable. Impossible.

No. No they don't. There is no "law" that states any such thing.

 

[Vastator]

Apparently, people on this forum lack the intelligence and education necessary to defend the theory of evolution.

Your disbelief in established science is not tantamount to evolutionary theory being under assault... Whereby defense of the issue is a non sequitur. Nor do many, if any at all, care if you choose to accpet the facts. Science, and the world will continue to move forward without regard to your perceptions.

 

[sealybobo]

The demand that I get an education is strange. I have 19 years of formal education, and during but in all that time, I never heard of a species of animal that was half-way between a monkey and a man. Seems to me that some creature like that should exist, or should have existed, sometime in history if the theory of evolution is true. When I say, where's the proof of evolution? I am treated like some sort of heretic at an Inquisition. I am condemned for my lack of faith.

Sad to hear that in all those years, you never learned what the theory of evolution was about.....

I am very sure I know more about evolution than you do.

1. Evolution is a theory that has an abundance of evidence to support it, which is why every reputable scientist in any field of study related to evolution and biology believes it to be true. To demand proof of evolution is an impossibility, and if you know as much about science and evolution as you claim then you would certainly know that. Which means either you are a creationist or you are trying to rile people up. Which begs the question: do you believe in creationism?

2. Anthropologists have been looking for the so-called missing link between man and apes for a long time. The fact that they have not found it does not invalidate the possibility that such exists, they have found hominids that are fairly close though. Are you proposing that homo sapiens could not have evolved from apes and monkeys? If you want to say that it didn't happen that way, God did it, you're entitled to that opinion or theory. However, there's no proof of that either and far less evidence than there is for the theory of evolution.

3. If you know as much about the idea of evolution as you say, then you know that some animals have adapted and evolved more than others, for a number of reasons. At some point in time, some hominids came down out of the trees and started walking around on 2 feet and some stayed in the trees but still managed to avoid extinction. They didn't have to evolve any further than what they pretty much already were to survive. Early humans did, as evidenced by so many earlier species of homo that died out. We adapted into who and what we are today. So maybe there never was a half monkey, half man, or if there was it didn't offer any survival benefits. Which means there may not have been many half monkey, half-man individuals for us to find remains for.

When you say I have to believe in evolution because "every reputable scientist" believes it, then I grow suspicious that you are imposing an orthodoxy.

I didn't say you have to believe in anything, and I have no power at all to impose anything on anybody.

And evolution with or without a guiding intelligence is still evolution. So, yes or no, do you believe mankind evolved from apes/monkeys?

Right. Theists don't believe because evolution contradicts their creation story but even if evolution is proven they'll just say god did it.

 

[Moonglow]

If man evolved from monkeys, where are the monkeys that half-evolved into men?

 

[Vastator]

Sad to hear that in all those years, you never learned what the theory of evolution was about.....

I am very sure I know more about evolution than you do.

1. Evolution is a theory that has an abundance of evidence to support it, which is why every reputable scientist in any field of study related to evolution and biology believes it to be true. To demand proof of evolution is an impossibility, and if you know as much about science and evolution as you claim then you would certainly know that. Which means either you are a creationist or you are trying to rile people up. Which begs the question: do you believe in creationism?

2. Anthropologists have been looking for the so-called missing link between man and apes for a long time. The fact that they have not found it does not invalidate the possibility that such exists, they have found hominids that are fairly close though. Are you proposing that homo sapiens could not have evolved from apes and monkeys? If you want to say that it didn't happen that way, God did it, you're entitled to that opinion or theory. However, there's no proof of that either and far less evidence than there is for the theory of evolution.

3. If you know as much about the idea of evolution as you say, then you know that some animals have adapted and evolved more than others, for a number of reasons. At some point in time, some hominids came down out of the trees and started walking around on 2 feet and some stayed in the trees but still managed to avoid extinction. They didn't have to evolve any further than what they pretty much already were to survive. Early humans did, as evidenced by so many earlier species of homo that died out. We adapted into who and what we are today. So maybe there never was a half monkey, half man, or if there was it didn't offer any survival benefits. Which means there may not have been many half monkey, half-man individuals for us to find remains for.

When you say I have to believe in evolution because "every reputable scientist" believes it, then I grow suspicious that you are imposing an orthodoxy.

I didn't say you have to believe in anything, and I have no power at all to impose anything on anybody.

And evolution with or without a guiding intelligence is still evolution. So, yes or no, do you believe mankind evolved from apes/monkeys?

Right. Theists don't believe because evolution contradicts their creation story but even if evolution is proven they'll just say god did it.

Once they've committed their belief to fairy tales; it will never be "proven".

 

[hobelim]

Certainly, there ought to be a species of monkey that had half-evolved into a man, maybe half as smart as men, maybe able to read and write simple sentences, or able to drive a car or ride a horse?

But there is no such species as a half-man, half-monkey.

lol....Obviously you have never attended a tent revival. For some mysterious reason they come out of their trees and hiding places in the surrounding forests and go ape shit whenever one of them holds up a shiny object.

If you don't believe me you can check it out. Be careful though. If you don't start jumping around and screeching about Jesus like a chimpanzee high on crack they will turn on you, beat you to a bloody pulp, mutilate your body, use your skull as a trophy and your murder to decorate their resume..

 

[sealybobo]

I am very sure I know more about evolution than you do.

1. Evolution is a theory that has an abundance of evidence to support it, which is why every reputable scientist in any field of study related to evolution and biology believes it to be true. To demand proof of evolution is an impossibility, and if you know as much about science and evolution as you claim then you would certainly know that. Which means either you are a creationist or you are trying to rile people up. Which begs the question: do you believe in creationism?

2. Anthropologists have been looking for the so-called missing link between man and apes for a long time. The fact that they have not found it does not invalidate the possibility that such exists, they have found hominids that are fairly close though. Are you proposing that homo sapiens could not have evolved from apes and monkeys? If you want to say that it didn't happen that way, God did it, you're entitled to that opinion or theory. However, there's no proof of that either and far less evidence than there is for the theory of evolution.

3. If you know as much about the idea of evolution as you say, then you know that some animals have adapted and evolved more than others, for a number of reasons. At some point in time, some hominids came down out of the trees and started walking around on 2 feet and some stayed in the trees but still managed to avoid extinction. They didn't have to evolve any further than what they pretty much already were to survive. Early humans did, as evidenced by so many earlier species of homo that died out. We adapted into who and what we are today. So maybe there never was a half monkey, half man, or if there was it didn't offer any survival benefits. Which means there may not have been many half monkey, half-man individuals for us to find remains for.

When you say I have to believe in evolution because "every reputable scientist" believes it, then I grow suspicious that you are imposing an orthodoxy.

I didn't say you have to believe in anything, and I have no power at all to impose anything on anybody.

And evolution with or without a guiding intelligence is still evolution. So, yes or no, do you believe mankind evolved from apes/monkeys?

Right. Theists don't believe because evolution contradicts their creation story but even if evolution is proven they'll just say god did it.

Once they've committed their belief to fairy tales; it will never be "proven".

No proof necessary.

 

[Weatherman2020]

and the laws of physics say it is impossible.

If you're referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that, "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.". But evolution isn't an isolated system. Spontaneous genetic mutation is caused by influences from outside the reproductive system.

A gene cannot create new advancements in nature. It can only lose them. A gene of X length cannot become X+1 and still work.

A gene is sequence of nucleotides that are arranged helically to form chromosomes. There is no physical limit to the number of genes that can be combined to form longer chromosomes. The human genome contains almost 20,000 genes. The hepatitis B virus contains less than 4,000 genes.

We are talking about a few genes going to 20,000 naturally. Laws of nature say it's impossible. Not improbable. Impossible.

No. No they don't. There is no "law" that states any such thing.

Uh, yes it does. The entropy of any closed system will tend to increase with time. Mutations cannot occur that are a higher order. They only reduce what exists. Everything must move towards chaos, not a higher order. One cannot take atoms and wait for them to become a DNA strand, no matter how long you wait.

Even when you get DNA, it needs biological machines to replicate. Unwind, strip, cut, splice, rewind. Nature would have to create all of these machines at the same exact time it created the DNA. If just one of these machines were not working perfectly the strand does not replicate.

The human genome is too complex to have occurred naturally. As the discoverer of the human genome said, he went into his work an atheist and ended it saying God did it.

 

[bodecea]

Certainly, there ought to be a species of monkey that had half-evolved into a man, maybe half as smart as men, maybe able to read and write simple sentences, or able to drive a car or ride a horse?

But there is no such species as a half-man, half-monkey.

True, they have been able to teach sign language to apes, but it takes a great deal of human effort to do this, and you must feed apes constantly to keep them interested.

A human baby does not need treats to motivate it to learn, it is motivated by the learning process itself.

Do you have a link to a source claiming men evolved from monkeys? I've never heard a serious claim made to that point. If you could post a source stating such, debate would prove more fruitful.

That's what they used to teach in "science" class.

It was ridiculous.

Nope....that's not what was taught in science class. What was taught was that today's monkeys, apes, and humans all came from a common ancestor.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Certainly, there ought to be a species of monkey that had half-evolved into a man, maybe half as smart as men, maybe able to read and write simple sentences, or able to drive a car or ride a horse?

But there is no such species as a half-man, half-monkey.

True, they have been able to teach sign language to apes, but it takes a great deal of human effort to do this, and you must feed apes constantly to keep them interested.

A human baby does not need treats to motivate it to learn, it is motivated by the learning process itself.

Do you have a link to a source claiming men evolved from monkeys? I've never heard a serious claim made to that point. If you could post a source stating such, debate would prove more fruitful.

That's what they used to teach in "science" class.

It was ridiculous.

Nope....that's not what was taught in science class. What was taught was that today's monkeys, apes, and humans all came from a common ancestor.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Certainly, there ought to be a species of monkey that had half-evolved into a man, maybe half as smart as men, maybe able to read and write simple sentences, or able to drive a car or ride a horse?

But there is no such species as a half-man, half-monkey.

True, they have been able to teach sign language to apes, but it takes a great deal of human effort to do this, and you must feed apes constantly to keep them interested.

A human baby does not need treats to motivate it to learn, it is motivated by the learning process itself.

Do you have a link to a source claiming men evolved from monkeys? I've never heard a serious claim made to that point. If you could post a source stating such, debate would prove more fruitful.

That's what they used to teach in "science" class.

It was ridiculous.

Nope....that's not what was taught in science class. What was taught was that today's monkeys, apes, and humans all came from a common ancestor.

Standard indoctrination chart in public schools.

 

[fncceo]

Nature would have to create all of these machines at the same exact time it created the DNA

Actually, the helicase enzyme (the enzyme that breaks the hydrogen bonds of DNA) could have come into existence hundreds of millions of years apart from RNA and DNA. Just as chains of amino acids called proteins existed for a billion years before animals evolved that would require them for nutrition.

 

[PredFan]

OK, maybe it's not accurate to say men evolved from monkeys. But all members of the primate family are cousins to the homo sapiens species, is that not accurate?

And if that is so, why is there such a wide gap between the intelligence of humans and the intelligence of the other primates?

Why is there no primate race that can drive an automobile, or ride a horse, or work with tools?

Actually, higher primates, gorillas and chimps mostly, use tools. One gorilla used to converse with humans using sign language.

 

[bodecea]

Certainly, there ought to be a species of monkey that had half-evolved into a man, maybe half as smart as men, maybe able to read and write simple sentences, or able to drive a car or ride a horse?

But there is no such species as a half-man, half-monkey.

True, they have been able to teach sign language to apes, but it takes a great deal of human effort to do this, and you must feed apes constantly to keep them interested.

A human baby does not need treats to motivate it to learn, it is motivated by the learning process itself.

Do you have a link to a source claiming men evolved from monkeys? I've never heard a serious claim made to that point. If you could post a source stating such, debate would prove more fruitful.

That's what they used to teach in "science" class.

It was ridiculous.

Nope....that's not what was taught in science class. What was taught was that today's monkeys, apes, and humans all came from a common ancestor.

Standard indoctrination chart in public schools.
View attachment 138369

Yep...that first isn't a monkey...it's an ancestor. You could have two similar charts....one for the progression of modern day monkeys and one for the progression of modern day apes.

 

[fncceo]

Certainly, there ought to be a species of monkey that had half-evolved into a man, maybe half as smart as men, maybe able to read and write simple sentences, or able to drive a car or ride a horse?

But there is no such species as a half-man, half-monkey.

True, they have been able to teach sign language to apes, but it takes a great deal of human effort to do this, and you must feed apes constantly to keep them interested.

A human baby does not need treats to motivate it to learn, it is motivated by the learning process itself.

Do you have a link to a source claiming men evolved from monkeys? I've never heard a serious claim made to that point. If you could post a source stating such, debate would prove more fruitful.

That's what they used to teach in "science" class.

It was ridiculous.

Nope....that's not what was taught in science class. What was taught was that today's monkeys, apes, and humans all came from a common ancestor.

Standard indoctrination chart in public schools.
View attachment 138369

Pliopithecus (the far left hominid on the chart) is neither a monkey nor an ape. It's a hominid that resembles a Gibbon that lived in Asia 14 million years ago. It is reasonable to assume that any early hominid resemble a common ancestor that all primates share, both apes and humans.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nature would have to create all of these machines at the same exact time it created the DNA

Actually, the helicase enzyme (the enzyme that breaks the hydrogen bonds of DNA) could have come into existence hundreds of millions of years apart from RNA and DNA. Just as chains of amino acids called proteins existed for a billion years before animals evolved that would require them for nutrition.

And they all just happened to work perfectly simultaneously to replicate DNA which just happened to naturally form from atoms naturally.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Certainly, there ought to be a species of monkey that had half-evolved into a man, maybe half as smart as men, maybe able to read and write simple sentences, or able to drive a car or ride a horse?

But there is no such species as a half-man, half-monkey.

True, they have been able to teach sign language to apes, but it takes a great deal of human effort to do this, and you must feed apes constantly to keep them interested.

A human baby does not need treats to motivate it to learn, it is motivated by the learning process itself.

Do you have a link to a source claiming men evolved from monkeys? I've never heard a serious claim made to that point. If you could post a source stating such, debate would prove more fruitful.

That's what they used to teach in "science" class.

It was ridiculous.

Nope....that's not what was taught in science class. What was taught was that today's monkeys, apes, and humans all came from a common ancestor.

Standard indoctrination chart in public schools.
View attachment 138369

Pliopithecus (the far left hominid on the chart) is neither a monkey nor an ape. It's a hominid that resembles a Gibbon that lived in Asia 14 million years ago. It is reasonable to assume that any early hominid resemble a common ancestor that all primates share, both apes and humans.

It's a monkey.

 

[Weatherman2020]

As Nobel Prize winner Dr Collins says, this process is far too complex to have occurred naturally. God did it.

3D Animations - Replication: Mechanism of Replication (Advanced) :: DNA Learning Center