But we do have plenty of evidence, or lack there of to stand our ground. You may as well, and then this becomes and inflection point between our arguments. Until more evidence, or persistent lack there of comes to fruition or not, both sides can choose to stand their ground… fair?
I can’t understand what you are claiming if you refuse to explain it.
What do you mean by “You see what you expect”? Are you saying there aren’t as many CpG mutations as claimed? Are you claiming the theory of evolution doesn’t predict how many there should be? What do you mean by it?
1 Like
There’s already mountains of evidence, and the theory of evolution explains it really, really well. If you have a better explanation for the data, then present the data and your explanation. We could start with the spectrum of substitution mutations mentioned earlier in the thread if you want.
1 Like
No one, I presume, doubts that the large size of the brain in man, relatively to his body, in comparison with that of the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers. We meet the closely analogous facts with insects, in which the cerebral ganglia are of extraordinary dimensions in ants; these ganglia in all the Hymenoptera being many times larger than in the less intelligent orders, such as beetles…
The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilized races, of ancient and modern people, and by analogy of the whole vertebrate series.
Charles Darwin.
Edit oh and theres this…
AI: The evidence for a common ancestor between humans and great apes is very strong, supported by multiple lines of scientific evidence including genetics, the fossil record, and comparative anatomy. Genetic studies show humans and chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their DNA, and the human chromosome #2 is evidence of a fusion event between two ancestral chromosomes. The fossil record and comparative anatomy reveal a transition from an apelike ancestor to modern humans, showing key developments like bipedalism and changes in brain size over time.
Evidence is not the issue, interpretation is.
I can have a box filled with every color and shape of LEGO bricks.
You can have the same box.
But having the pieces does not determine the assembly.
The pieces do not reveal the blueprint.
The components do not dictate the final structure.
And similarity between pieces doesn’t prove the origin of the design.
That’s where we differ.
You say evolution “explains it really, really well,” but that assumes:
• continuity of cognitive development
• continuity of symbolic reasoning
• continuity of abstract thought
• continuity of moral architecture
• continuity of consciousness
These continuities are not found in the evidence, they are inferred.
Yes, we have biological “pieces” (genes, fossils, behaviors, morphologies).
But the moment we assemble them into a narrative of how consciousness arose, or how symbolic reasoning emerged, or how the human mind entered the world, we are no longer dealing with empirical bricks, we are dealing with interpretive blueprints**.**
Evolution gives one possible blueprint.
ID gives another.
The data itself does not settle the blueprint question.
Until the gaps in cognition, language, symbolic reasoning, and consciousness are empirically bridged, both sides are indeed choosing the explanatory model that best fits their worldview.
Fair.
If you think your blueprint explains the pieces better, present that explanatory chain, not just the pieces.
Because the pieces alone don’t tell the story.
The story comes from the assembler.
1 Like
claim: “Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA.”
That statistic is selectively defined…. whaaaaat?… science is selective?… say it ain’t so!
It only applies when comparing aligned single-nucleotide positions while excluding:
• indels
• structural variants
• copy number variation
• regulatory network differences
• non-alignable sequence
When you include the full genome architecture, not just the handpicked aligned segments, the similarity number drops dramatically.
Similarity does not prove ancestry.
Similarity proves shared biochemical constraints.
Humans also share:
• ~90% with mice
• ~70% with zebrafish
• ~60% with chickens
• and dozens of conserved genes with octopus
Similarity ≠ lineage.
Similarity = shared design parameters / functional constraints.
2. “Chromosome 2 fusion proves common ancestry.”
Chromosome 2 fusion proves fusion.
It does not prove where or how that fusion occurred.
A fusion event is compatible with multiple explanations:
• inherited from a common ancestor
• a lineage-specific event after humans branched off
• a front-loaded design constraint
• a structural optimization event
• or a top-down reorganization within early Homo populations
The logic “fusion = shared ancestor” is not a scientific inevitability, it is a philosophical preference.
And the kicker?
Fusion says nothing about consciousness, symbolic behavior, language, morality, or identity, the very traits that define humanity and do not appear incrementally in the record.
3. “The fossil record shows a transition from apes to humans.”
No.
It shows variation across hominids, not lineage.
We see:
• different species occupying overlapping time periods
• dead-end branches
• morphological diversity
• no continuous cognitive gradient
• no incremental symbolic development
• no precursor to abstract reasoning
• no transitional form for language structures
• no proto-moral architecture
• no proto-consciousness
The fossil record does not demonstrate:
instinct → symbolic abstraction
reaction → reflection
perception → self-awareness
communication → language
social behavior → morality
tool use → cumulative culture
These are qualitative jumps, not quantitative slopes.
4. “Key developments over time: bipedalism, brain size, etc.”
Bipedalism ≠ symbolism.
Brain size ≠ consciousness.
Morphology ≠ mind.
Whales and elephants have massive brains.
Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than us.
Octopuses solve puzzles like toddlers.
Cognition is not determined by the size of a skull.
Human consciousness is not reducible to bone morphology.
You cannot derive grammar, abstraction, identity, self-awareness, or moral reasoning from skeletal remains.
This is why your AI-generated answer collapses.
5. The real issue the AI avoided
The jump to symbolic consciousness has no documented precursors.
Human uniqueness appears suddenly:
• symbolic art
• ritual burial
• abstract notation
• cumulative culture
• long-term planning
• syntactical language
• moral reasoning
• spirituality
• identity
• reflection
• self-awareness
These abilities do not appear as increments.
They appear as a phase change.
There is no empirical bridge from primate instinct to human self-awareness.
This is why the best scientists working on consciousness (Penrose, Chalmers, Koch, Tononi, Goff) openly admit:
We do not know how consciousness arises from matter.
We have no model.
We have no mechanism.
We have no transitional pathway.
6. Final thought
If you want AI to “prove evolution,” you can prompt it to do so.
If you want AI to “prove intelligent design,” you can prompt it to do that too.
The question is not:
Can AI recite a narrative?
The question is:
What does the data actually require?
And the data shows:
• biological variation → yes
• shared biochemical constraints → absolutely
• documented cognitive continuum → no
• demonstrated evolutionary pathway to consciousness → none
• gradual emergence of symbolic reasoning → none
• empirical chain from instinct to self-awareness → none
In short:
The science does not close the case for primate ancestry.
It leaves open the space where consciousness, identity, and stewardship enter
the very space Genesis describes.
1 Like
Concept definition
an abstract idea:
Definition of abstract
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:
And that is your problem.
You cannot think in abstract. You need an example, preferably tangible and physical
That is why I cannot explain it to you.
Richard
We should run a study on material and atheist individuals not possessing the ability for abstract thoughts and reason… Can we get some volunteers here? 
No, it is seen as an insult, even though it is not.
Abstract thought is the antipathy of scientism and the scientific method, even though it is embedded in science. The problems arise when the abstract includes exceptions and anomalies, or data that is either no longer available or beyond the vision of the scientist. Evolutionary theory includes such abstracts but the scientists on this forum refuse to acknowledge their existence
Trying to point out abstracts just gets comments about "Because you say so. or “give me data” (Brent Spiner is in such high demand)
Richard
Promise?
What fallacy?
What exceptions?
What problems?
We are primates.
Nope… that’s your claim… you can be of monkey material, have at it… I’ll stay special, thanks LOL… you doubling for the next King Kong movie AP? 
Right. I concede. Your ignorance is superior to all knowledge.
thank you… much appreciated!
Really? Being a primate implies a given set of characteristics. Can you explain why they would not belong?
Primate | Definition, Species, Characteristics, Classification, Distribution, & Facts | Britannica
By the way, monkeys are primates, but not all primates are monkeys, if that helps. It’s sort of like lumping all birds together, etc.
Thanks.
Sure, fair – as long as we agree that one ‘side’ has a wide range of evidence that points to common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, while the other side has no evidence at all that they don’t share a common ancestor and no alternative explanation for much of the data.
Reminds me of this Michael Martin Murphy song:
“Slim, you ain’t changed all that much.”
No Established connection between humans and primates
And of course, while I hate to be that guy:
Actually, humans are primates.
2 Likes
No Established connection between humans and primates
Obviously incorrect, and the shared genetic heritage, most of which is not even used for anything, is a smoking gun in the hand covered with gunpowder residue.
Yes it does. This is our ultimate test of paternity.
non-sequiteur… similarity of anatomy is not genetic similarity.
Incorrect. Most of the genome is unused and has NOTHING to do with the observed organism let alone some imaginary “design framework.” No, that unused part of genome is a record of evolutionary history.
And there are counter-examples like the eye of the octopus which has so many similarities of structure with the human eye but LESS genetic similarity than between humans and other mollusks.
EXACTLY!
Biologically and genetically, we have a common heritage with chimpanzees from 6 million years ago. But since that time we have developed significant differences: a sweat cooling system making us the best long distance running persistence hunters, cooking to greatly increase food efficiency, and language to pass on an inheritance of acquired information (which some people believe to include communication from God). Nothing insignificant about those differences! Mind (which I believe is a living organism in its own right in the medium of language just as our biology is a living organism in the medium of DNA), meaning, and destiny indeed!
Why would I concede that? You have your comfort and monkey genes to complete the picture in your head… we don’t have to go jump off that cliff with you. I concede nothing! Good luck