Evidence of Human Common Ancestry

[SusheelMacherla]

There aren't any recent updates here but I'll ask evolutionists anyways...I've read many articles but still evolution seems not so convincing. Why on earth would things be so perfect? Like the food chain etc...Bees or other insects are essential for pollination but they only evolved much later than plants. Some animals evolved into food and some into predators why? What is the question of fittest of survival here? Some plants are just plants, they don't anything except convert some CO2 to oxygen but some product fruit which is much useful for remaining beings and some of which have essential vitamins etc. Who taught them to product fruits with vitamins when there were no humans or animals around to eat them in the first place? Why is mother nature so intelligent that it knows everything and does so many things otherwise incomprehensible to inanimate objects? Why does only earth have all things necessary including Lithium, diamonds, gold, silver etc and why exactly in the proportions that they need to be like...iron is vast but gold is rare and diamonds and precious stones are even rarer. Why it has to be that humans the super evolved organism is so vulnerable compared to even the most primitive beings like bacteria or fungus? Fungus has better chance of survival than humans then why it did evolve into something more useless? Why are the fossils only millions of years apart? Why didn't they survive in every year? Too many questions but would like answers to them individually and if possible in a single sentence or two instead of pointing to evolution doctorate theses...

[swansont]

If you anthropomorphize nature and think there is a purpose then you will make understanding of evolution all the more difficult.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, SusheelMacherla said:

I've read many articles but still evolution seems not so convincing. Why on earth would things be so perfect? Like the food chain etc...Bees or other insects are essential for pollination but they only evolved much later than plants.

That's really odd. Most people who actually read articles on evolution see it as more or less intuitive. Traits from parents are passed to the offspring, and the more diverse the traits the better an organism is able to adapt to more environments. Plants came first and evolved along their own lines, but were made even more adaptable and diverse when bees came along and made pollination easier. I'm so sorry understanding eludes you.

2 hours ago, SusheelMacherla said:

What is the question of fittest of survival here? Some plants are just plants, they don't anything except convert some CO2 to oxygen but some product fruit which is much useful for remaining beings and some of which have essential vitamins etc. Who taught them to product fruits with vitamins when there were no humans or animals around to eat them in the first place? 

Biodiversity is one of the keys here. The more varied organisms there are, the easier it is for more of them to find the best paths to survival. "Fittest" doesn't mean strongest necessarily, but the most adaptable. Plants tried lots of strategies to spread their seeds, and one of them, nutritious fruits, turned out to be heavily selected for. The fruits started small, but over time they were the most successful, so the plants invested more energy into growing more fruit to become more successful.

Plants and animals evolve together, and we see this best when we look at some birds and how their bills curve to match a particular flower food source other animals can't reach. The plants also adapt to the birds, making the flower curve even more to hide its nectar from all but a particular species of bird.

2 hours ago, SusheelMacherla said:

Why is mother nature so intelligent that it knows everything and does so many things otherwise incomprehensible to inanimate objects?

 There is no "Mother Nature", just the evolutionary process, which is more or less blind to the kind of knowledge you're implying. Evolution only works on living species though, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

2 hours ago, SusheelMacherla said:

Why does only earth have all things necessary including Lithium, diamonds, gold, silver etc and why exactly in the proportions that they need to be like...iron is vast but gold is rare and diamonds and precious stones are even rarer.

This is an Earth-bound perspective, and you're looking at this problem backwards. The minerals are simply there, and we have adapted to that fact, using them as resources in as efficient a way as possible. Of course they seem like they're in perfect proportions, but it's more like a puddle fitting the perfect proportions of the impression in the land it's in. It's not the impression that did the work, it's the water that adapts to fit the impression that makes the puddle.

2 hours ago, SusheelMacherla said:

Why it has to be that humans the super evolved organism is so vulnerable compared to even the most primitive beings like bacteria or fungus? Fungus has better chance of survival than humans then why it did evolve into something more useless?

Again, biodiversity is the key to all life on Earth, because we have so many different environments. Your fungus is extremely resilient, until you put it in an environment where it's not. Fungus is a better food source than humans for many species. But humans can survive an environment much more acidic than mushrooms can, and we're MUCH better at absorbing and using light as an energy source.

[Prometheus]

49 minutes ago, SusheelMacherla said:

Why it has to be that humans the super evolved organism is so vulnerable compared to even the most primitive beings like bacteria or fungus? Fungus has better chance of survival than humans then why it did evolve into something more useless?

Fungi constitute ~2% of all biomass on Earth, humans 0.01%. Not quite useless.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, SusheelMacherla said:

There aren't any recent updates here but I'll ask evolutionists anyways...I've read many articles but still evolution seems not so convincing. Why on earth would things be so perfect? Like the food chain etc...Bees or other insects are essential for pollination but they only evolved much later than plants. Some animals evolved into food and some into predators why? What is the question of fittest of survival here? Some plants are just plants, they don't anything except convert some CO2 to oxygen but some product fruit which is much useful for remaining beings and some of which have essential vitamins etc. Who taught them to product fruits with vitamins when there were no humans or animals around to eat them in the first place? Why is mother nature so intelligent that it knows everything and does so many things otherwise incomprehensible to inanimate objects? Why does only earth have all things necessary including Lithium, diamonds, gold, silver etc and why exactly in the proportions that they need to be like...iron is vast but gold is rare and diamonds and precious stones are even rarer. Why it has to be that humans the super evolved organism is so vulnerable compared to even the most primitive beings like bacteria or fungus? Fungus has better chance of survival than humans then why it did evolve into something more useless? Why are the fossils only millions of years apart? Why didn't they survive in every year? Too many questions but would like answers to them individually and if possible in a single sentence or two instead of pointing to evolution doctorate theses...

It looks to me as if the answers to your many questions can easily be found, just by a bit of reading, if you really want to know the answers.

However, my rather jaundiced experience of those who describe scientifically literate people as "evolutionists" is that they actually don't want to know the answers, as the answers don't fit their (naive) religious beliefs. I hope you are not one of those. Assuming pro tem that you are not, brief answers to some of your questions would be as follows:-

Bees: pollination by insects is just one of many ways that it takes place. So insects were not always necessary. The flowering plants evolved to take advantage of insect pollination, after the insects appeared.

Mouth: One of the most important steps in the evolution of animals was the evolution of the mouth. This occurred some time in the pre-Cambrian and was followed fairly quickly by the evolution of shells, as a means of protecting some creatures from being eaten by others. If you know a bit about food chains you should know there is no clean division into predators and prey. Many animals that are predators are themselves prey for others.

Fruit: Fruits are one means of seed dispersal, making use of animals. There are plenty of other methods, though. Fruits are formed by flowering plants, which only evolved long after animals had colonised the land so, as with pollination, they were able to take advantage of an existing situation.

Minerals:   There is no reason to suppose the abundance of minerals on the Earth is radically different from what it would be on similar rocky planets. So your comment about "only" the Earth having these properties is misconceived.

Fossils: You need to stop and think a bit. Consider how rare it is for a dead organism to be fossilised. Then consider how rare it is for a fossil to be exposed once more at the surface of the Earth, after it is formed. Then consider how rare it is for such a fossil to be found. It is not at all surprising that the fossil record consists of sets of dots, that we have to join in order to see the pattern. 

Evolution: It is surprising you find this unconvincing, unless you have deliberately set out to find it so. Plant and animal breeders have known since the dawn of civilisation that populations of creatures contain variations and that by selecting variants with certain traits and breeding from them, big changes can be made, over a matter of many generations. Just look at breeds of dogs, for example.  All Darwin did was suggest that the natural environment can do the same, because some traits will make it more likely that the creature breeds successfully in that environment. It's hardly rocket science. Moreover, we see it daily in the news. Where do you think these variants of Covid, that everyone worries about, come from?  Variation eventually produces a version that reproduces (by infection) more rapidly - and so that one becomes dominant. It's evolution at work in real time.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by exchemist

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 5/18/2021 at 9:49 AM, SusheelMacherla said:

Why on earth would things be so perfect? 

What does perfect mean to you? Things are never all in perfect balance, and change is constantly taking place.

[StringJunky]

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams snippet in Salmon of Doubt:

Quote

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
 

 

[LazaB]

Very good explanation that proves common ancestry beyound a shadow of a doubt.

This is a science forum right , so why is there still a debate about evolution ?

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, LazaB said:

This is a science forum right , so why is there still a debate about evolution ?

You don’t have to be a scientist, or even confirm you accept basic scientific understandings, to join and become a member. 

Also… There is no debate. Just corrections of creationist ignorance and education of the misinformed. 

[studiot]

43 minutes ago, LazaB said:

This is a science forum right , so why is there still a debate about evolution ?

Welcome.

As to your question

Some folks don't know enough to know that that they don't know enough, but scientists know enough to know they don't know enough.
So they are always asking questions to make sure.

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

Some folks don't know enough to know that that they don't know enough, but scientists know enough to know they don't know enough.

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

[studiot]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

You've met our Prime Minister then.  +1

[JimBlob]

Why are the posts here so old?

 

I so wanted to respond to this but nobody is listening.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, JimBlob said:

Why are the posts here so old?

The thread began 18 years ago? I'm going to go with that.

1 hour ago, JimBlob said:

I so wanted to respond to this but nobody is listening.

... to the response you so wanted to give yet didn't? I so wanted to listen to it but you didn't respond.

[Night FM]

On 3/7/2005 at 6:40 AM, Radical Edward said:

I see there are a few creationist posters here from time to time. So here is a very small amount of the evidence for common ancestry with the rest of the apes

I'm aware this post is old, but I appreciate the evidence. Though I would argue that that "ape" is just an arbitrary zoological classification, just as how you could just as well use "primate" as a classification instead of ape. Or merely "homo sapiens".

I'm not speaking about you, but I believe that some people who insist on using the terms like "ape" to describe humans aren't using it in a strictly zoological sense, and are using it to make inferences about humanity based on what they perceive "ape-like behavior to be", essentially devaluating the human condition to the level of those behaviors. (I've even heard some use the term "monkey", which isn't even zoologically correct to begin with).

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[exchemist]

21 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I'm aware this post is old, but I appreciate the evidence. Though I would argue that that "ape" is just an arbitrary zoological classification, just as how you could just as well use "primate" as a classification instead of ape. Or merely "homo sapiens".

I'm not speaking about you, but I believe that some people who insist on using the terms like "ape" to describe humans aren't using it in a strictly zoological sense, and are using it to make inferences about humanity based on what they perceive "ape-like behavior to be", essentially devaluating the human condition to the level of those behaviors. (I've even heard some use the term "monkey", which isn't even zoologically correct to begin with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
 

[Night FM]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:36 AM, exchemist said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
 

Right, it's an arbitrary and non-mutually exclusive classification based on a select number of physical traits shared in common with something (while excluding those physical traits that aren't shared in common).

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

Right, it's an arbitrary and non-mutually exclusive classification based on a select number of physical traits shared in common with something (while excluding those physical traits that aren't shared in common).

So you think the definition of clades in biology is arbitrary, do you? Why then do scientists bother to classify organisms according to clades? Just for fun? Or to bamboozle the public with self-serving nonsense, perhaps? 

Edited September 27 by exchemist

[Night FM]

44 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So you think the definition of clades in biology is arbitrary, do you? Why then do scientists bother to classify organisms according to clades? Just for fun? Or to bamboozle the public with self-serving nonsense, perhaps? 

Yes. If you take several things, you could arbitrarily classify them an infinite number of ways based on whatever traits you want. Such as how if you took several apples, you could classify them based on color, shape, size, and so on. Even if you groups 2 apples together based on both being the color "red", it wouldn't in anyway negate whatever other traits they don't share in common, such as one apple being larger than the other.

I'd be tempted to argue that humankind should be put into a completely separate kingdom than the animals, classified perhaps not on the basis of physical traits shared in common with animals but on other traits, such as needs as per Maslow's hierarchy which differ them from animals (who I presume to be more relegated to lower, materialistic levels of need).

Edited September 27 by Night FM

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

Yes. If you take several things, you could arbitrarily classify them an infinite number of ways based on whatever traits you want. Such as how if you took several apples, you could classify them based on color, shape, size, and so on. Even if you groups 2 apples together based on both being the color "red", it wouldn't in anyway negate whatever other traits they don't share in common, such as one apple being larger than the other.

I'd be tempted to argue that humankind should be put into a completely separate kingdom than the animals, classified perhaps not on the basis of physical traits shared in common with animals but on other traits, such as needs as per Maslow's hierarchy which differ them from animals (who I presume to be more relegated to lower, materialistic levels of need).

You are dismissing the science, then. That's a stupid thing to do. The similarities between Man and the other apes are numerous and obvious, as is the evidence of linkage through the progression of fossils. Possibly the most conclusive of all is the DNA similarity. No other creatures on the planet have DNA so close to our own as the apes.  

[Night FM]

23 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You are dismissing the science, then. That's a stupid thing to do. The similarities between Man and the other apes are numerous and obvious, as is the evidence of linkage through the progression of fossils. Possibly the most conclusive of all is the DNA similarity. No other creatures on the planet have DNA so close to our own as the apes.  

The similarities are irrelevant to what I'm arguing. So they are not being "dismissed" in the sense of being said to be "not there", but are merely being deemphasized in favor of the differences.

For example, a Honda Civic and a Ferrari both have "4 wheels", but if I were to emphasize the difference in horsepower, this wouldn't be claiming that they don't share the same number of wheels.

[exchemist]

37 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The similarities are irrelevant to what I'm arguing. So they are not being "dismissed" in the sense of being said to be "not there", but are merely being deemphasized in favor of the differences.

For example, a Honda Civic and a Ferrari both have "4 wheels", but if I were to emphasize the difference in horsepower, this wouldn't be claiming that they don't share the same number of wheels.

Then I don't see your point. Both are cars, using IC engines, gearboxes, suspensions etc that are broadly the same. Unlike, say a bicycle.  Calling both a Honda and a Ferrari cars is not an "arbitrary", in your words, classification.

Nobody is asserting a gorilla is the same as a bonobo or a man is the same as a chimpanzee. But that does not make it  "arbitrary" to classify all of them as apes. 

Edited September 27 by exchemist