[Bored chemist]

To a greater or lesser extent all those "points" just mean that we (uniquely) have a big complex brain.
It's no more difficult to see how a big brain can evolve than a long neck as per the giraffe.
 

In the meantime rather than writing "The foregoing shows that there is nothing to indicate human common descent from a common ancestor of any description." perhaps you can come up with an alternative explanation for the fact that we share nearly all our DNA with chimps and about half with bananas.

[Asyncritus]

To a greater or lesser extent all those "points" just mean that we (uniquely) have a big complex brain.
It's no more difficult to see how a big brain can evolve than a long neck as per the giraffe.

The fact is, we don't. From the POV of sheer quantity, the sperm whale beats us out of sight (7-8 kg brain). From the POV of ratios the shrew ECQ beats us out of sight. 

It isn't quantity - it's something else. But what? My answer is that we are made in the image and likeness of God who endowed us with a lot more than gray matter.

In the meantime rather than writing "The foregoing shows that there is nothing to indicate human common descent from a common ancestor of any description." perhaps you can come up with an alternative explanation for the fact that we share nearly all our DNA with chimps and about half with bananas.

Well, if the chimps eat bananas...

But seriously, I don't quite know what genetic similarities mean. Resemblances are tricky things, and insisting that a close similarity means common descent of some sort, is at best dubious.

Here are 2 examples of what I mean. I ask you, are they descended from a common ancestor?
 

Is that related to a plant or not?

Are these related, or not:


You also have the fact that in chimps, there are 2 EXTRA CHROMOSOMES. Now if common ancestor A had 44 chromosomes, then at some point 44 became 46 (us) and 48(chimps etc).

There is the ugly fact that 1 extra human chromosome creates Downs syndrome. Anything else will produce destruction and death.

So common ancestor becoming human or chimp couldn't happen.

Now add to that all of the other 20 or so physical differences I listed above, then you really have some serious problems with evolution and common descent.

[Bored chemist]

So, you didn't see the word "complex" in my post or did you just ignore it?

The examples you give are all related, some more closely than others.
Physical similarity isn't a reliable guide to kinship (though it's often quite good). That's exactly why taxonomists generally rely on DNA evidence these days.

I think your most telling statement is "But seriously, I don't quite know what genetic similarities mean."
Perhaps you should find out about the science before asserting it's wrong.

I take it that you are also unaware that modern wheat has 3 times as many chromosomes as it's ancestors and does really rather well.

[Asyncritus]

So, you didn't see the word "complex" in my post or did you just ignore it?

The examples you give are all related, some more closely than others.

You're not serious? The top picture is of an INSECT closely /identically resembling a LEAF. It is mimicking a leaf, closely resembling it - but does that prove that they are closely related? Don't be silly.

The butterflies below are mimicking one another, and the resemblance is quite startling - but does that prove relationship? You gotta be kidding.

Physical similarity isn't a reliable guide to kinship (though it's often quite good). That's exactly why taxonomists generally rely on DNA evidence these days.

The fact of the matter is that the DNA and protein sequencing evidence shows that the morphological similarities are exactly borne out by the morphological evidence.

Thus we would expect close similarity between chimps and us at genetic level. The morphologists have been saying so ever since Linnaeus' time. So there's nothing new there.

But as the evidence above shows, close similarity at morphological or genetic level is no assurance of relationship or common descent. They are both subject to alternative explanations. There are common DNA 'features', but that does not prove common 'descent'.

We know that DNA sequencing identifies parenthood - and that is 99.9% correct. But to extend that to a common ancestor 3.5 BILLION years ago (the cyanobacteria)is the height of stupidity as far as I am concerned. If that is not extrapolation on a gigantic, monstrous scale,I don't know what is.

DNA sequencing works well WITHIN SPECIES - but to go beyond that is not safe, or even reasonable.

I take it that you are also unaware that modern wheat has 3 times as many chromosomes as it's ancestors and does really rather well.

You're referring to the phenomenon of polyploidy which is common in plants. You will note that no new genus or family has been formed, but these are variants on a theme.

Polyploidy does not occur in mammals as a rule, in fact I think it was only recently that a polyploid rat was found.But it was a polyploid RAT - it hadn't changed into a shrew or something else - just as a Downs syndrome person is a human being, not some other species.

And there's your problem in a nutshell. A chimp has 2 extra pairs of chromosomes, and is perfectly normal.

So if we start with common ancestor X, with 44 chromosomes, then for that to evolve into a human with 46, and a chimp with 48 would result in disaster. You note that 46 and 48 are NOT polyploids of the original 44.

And on that matter, did you know that the domestic cat and the domestic pig have exactly the same number of chromosomes (38)? And that a gorilla, a chimpanzee and the potato plant and the tobacco plant all have 48 chromosomes? Does that prove that they are related?

Or that the whole idea of common descent is particularly stupid?

[Asyncritus]

I haven't mentioned the complexity of the human brain, because you really don't want to go there when discussing the chance production of new species. Trust me, you don't, but if you insist, I will.

[Bored chemist]

"You're not serious? The top picture is of an INSECT closely /identically resembling a LEAF. It is mimicking a leaf, closely resembling it - but does that prove that they are closely related? Don't be silly."
The fact that they all use DNA as their genetic material shows that they are related. I did say that they relationship wasn't close.
The similarity may be due to mimicry (as in those cases or due to convergent evolution (dolphins look a lot like sharks)
The simialrity of gross anatomy or their looks doesn't have anythig to do with kinship; their shared genetic heritage does.

As for  your comment "I haven't mentioned the complexity of the human brain, because you really don't want to go there when discussing the chance production of new species. Trust me, you don't, but if you insist, I will."
Well, you are half right.
I don't want you to blether on about it and repeat your lack of understanding of the time involved.
In particular, while this "And on that matter, did you know that the domestic cat and the domestic pig have exactly the same number of chromosomes (38)? And that a gorilla, a chimpanzee and the potato plant and the tobacco plant all have 48 chromosomes? Does that prove that they are related?" is a textbook example of a strawman, it is also an example of how poor your grasp of the subject is. Please go and read a book about it. Failing that, just please go.

[lyner]

Apart from trying to rubbish all the evidence that people on this forum have been discussing and presenting perhaps you could present us with one tiny bit of evidence for creationism.
"it's all to marvelous to be by chance" is not evidence.

Religious texts are not sufficient either - there are many cultures with many alternative explanations and none is any more 'evidence than another.

"Cos I believe and anyone who doesn't believe smells" is not evidence either.

Evolution has been one long list of blunders followed by other blunders to compensate. The evidence for that is everywhere.
If we were 'designed' then it was certainly not 'intelligent design'. It would have had to be 'learning on the job'.

[Flyberius]

Asyncritus - you've missed one out. How about:

Man is the only creature with the ability to present vacuous arguments.

Yeah, and you're a prime example of that aren't you? []

It must really smart to know that you cant proove god did it. 
End the crusade now.

[Flyberius]

Oh my god.  Why dont we all just give up on science.  Then we can have another 1000 years of dark ages while we punnish non-believers whilst whipping ourselves and re-writing that sh1tty sh1tty bible over and over.

I have to deal with idiots every day of work, but at least most of them are open to new ideas and can be taught.
I mean seriously.  God did it?  How can you not realise the absurdity of that claim.  You must see that trying to disprove one or two cases of evolution doesnt topple the overwhelming evidence of its existence.  I dont know why these people bother explaining it to you after the 90th bible bashing crusade.  Frankly, they're the only dieties in this universe.

[pbaylis1]

Is there any solid evidence at all that, among all these many branching-offs, another creature even looks like evolving into what man is - highly enlightened in every way. And if not, why the heck not? I don't want speculation, just some facts. Because it just ain't happening the way science says it happens.

[Don_1]

- highly enlightened in every way.

We have no idea what it's like to live as a Dolphin or an Eagle. So we are not so enlightened are we?

Each species evolved (and continues to evolve) according to different criteria dependant on a vast array of different circumstances and to perform a vast array of different functions. Evolution is taking them to new levels of perfection all the time. Species are interdependent on each other, as one progresses to a new level, so others modify to meet that level and perhaps go beyond, so others must follow.

You are suggesting that Humans are the ultimate species, we are not. We are the best, so far, in our realm and our realm only. Sharks are infinitely better than humans in their realm. You cannot compare ability or suitability between different species.

[BenV]

You are suggesting that Humans are the ultimate species, we are not. We are the best, so far, in our realm and our realm only. Sharks are infinitely better than humans in their realm. You cannot compare ability or suitability between different species.

We're also pretty rubbish in deserts and forests.

Is there any solid evidence at all that, among all these many branching-offs, another creature even looks like evolving into what man is - highly enlightened in every way. And if not, why the heck not? I don't want speculation, just some facts. Because it just ain't happening the way science says it happens.

There is no reason why anything would be evolving towards the same model as humans, so why would we assume it would happen?  Global climate conditions are not what they were for our ancestors, so the selection pressures are different.  If you think that evolution wants to produce human-like creatures, then you've missed the point of evolution.

[pbaylis1]

Well, I think if we're honest here, when we speak of evolution, we most certainly mean "advancement", we do not mean "divergence" or "adaptation" as that could be classed more as "natural selection". I'm talking about full-blooded evolution, as in humans evolving from pond scum. Advancement in intelligence allows humans, for example, to fly into space.  What other beast, that has been around as long as humans have, is showing any real sign of advancement to this degree? If it doesn't happen that way, then why did it happen to us and why doesn't it happen to other beings? If it happens at different speeds for different species, what is the mechanism that has made it happen faster for humans than other beings. These are questions that need to be answered before evolution gets to earn anything more than the label of "primitive theory", itself in need of quick "evolution".

[Madidus_Scientia]

Because it just ain't happening the way science says it happens.

Why do you say that? What isn't happening?

[BenV]

If it happens at different speeds for different species, what is the mechanism that has made it happen faster for humans than other beings.

You understand that different species are under different selection pressure?  You also understand that there is no 'need' to adapt in the way tat humans have?  Just because other apes are not entering the space race doesn't mean they, or we, have not evolved.

These are questions that need to be answered before evolution gets to earn anything more than the label of "primitive theory", itself in need of quick "evolution".

Actually, no, they're not.  These are your questions based on a misunderstanding of evolution and a strange notion that everything 'wants' to be like a human.  Also, your idea that being human is the peak of evolution.  Every species alive right now is the peak of its own evolution.  I'm afraid that regardless of your opinions, evolution is already a very well accepted and defined theory.

[Don_1]

I fear we are all wasting our time trying to get the staunch creationists to see any reason whatsoever. It's not that they can't understand evolution, it's that they do not want to understand. They are afraid that evolution undermines their beliefs and authority.

I always wondered why, at school many moons ago, during prayers, we were told to shut our eyes. Now I know, so we cannot see the alternatives.

[pbaylis1]

Actually, no, they're not.  These are your questions based on a misunderstanding of evolution and a strange notion that everything 'wants' to be like a human.  Also, your idea that being human is the peak of evolution.  Every species alive right now is the peak of its own evolution.  I'm afraid that regardless of your opinions, evolution is already a very well accepted and defined theory.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough and I think you know it. I've already said that I do NOT mean that every species wants to be Human. I am clearly talking about advancement in intelligence, complexity, social and moral enlightenment that only humans possess to such an advanced degree. When we speak of aliens, we often ponder on how "ADVANCED" they may be (if they exist). That is what I'm talking about. Why has no other creature developed in this way if we are all on the same planet, facing more or less the same environmental pressures and subject to the same so-called laws of evolution. This is a reasonable question to ask and demand an answer for. I suppose you can only speculate on the answer, and thus evolution remains very much theoretical.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Why has no other creature developed in this way if we are all on the same planet, facing more or less the same environmental pressures and subject to the same so-called laws of evolution.

Different creatures that actually are under the same selection pressures sometimes do evolve to be very similar, birds and bats for example both evolved wings independently of one another. This is not speculation as there is evidence behind it. You can read more about this here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution

To say that evolution is merely theoretical just because it has not yet produced two or more different forms of highly intelligent life capable of building tools and technology is logically flawed. You're just moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists. This is referred to as "The moving goalpost", http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18520.0

Our closest relative the chimpanzee isn't going to evolve into a human because it doesn't need to. It is perfectly suited to its environment and happy to swing around eating fruit and having sex all day. Maybe they're the smarter species after all?

[SquarishTriangle]

We partly base our visual conception of 'primitive human' on the species we are able to see in the world today, eg. the chimp, since we obviously can't see those from millions of years ago apart from their fossilised remains. It would therefore seem easy for the basis of the model to look remarkably similar to the model itself, just as oranges look...orange.

It's probably an advantage for chimps to resemble humans. Otherwise, we would be making them into pies...