|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Annafan writes: Your approach to this whole issue, somehow refusing to accept insights from the ToE because its 'starting point' remains unknown and fuzzy, can be generalized as reducing every (scientific) question to "Explain to me ALL AND EVERYTHING AT ONCE, or I will not accept ANYTHING AT ALL". This doesn't work and doesn't get you anywhere (you will remain stuck in the starting blocks forever)! imagine the a 50 story building. Where do they start the work of building it...at the top? No, it all begins with the foundations. it seems that evolution is working its way down, then it gets stuck in the mud when it comes to how the life that they are examining, actually came into existence in the first place. I'll tell you why they cant explain it... because they refuse to accept that an intelligent designer may have actually been its source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Percy you are reading my mind... i had this same thought recently (well not exactly the same, i dont know how hard one would be to produce but surely it wouldnt be impossible)
percy writes: An actual evolutionary tree would be harder to produce since there are many disagreements about the order and structure of descent. why dont you boys n girls get your heads together and come up with an evolutionary tree...that would be awesome and i would love to see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
subbie,
im sorry but i dont understand what is meant by daughter population. Is it like the first generation of offspring,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ok, i think i need to rephrase my ape question just so everyone knows what i was asking
the 'lower' apes....lets change that to the 'earlier' and the 'higher' apes...lets change to homo sapien type apes as in the evolution pictures of gorillas to man the earlier apes (gorillas/monkeys etc) are still here today, but the evolved species (hominoids/neanderthal ect) have become extinct firstly, if the earlier ape types are still here, then as was said, they are perfectly adapted to their environment hence they are not extinct but if they were perfectly adapted to their environment, why did some evolve into homosapient types, and others stay the same?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
a family tree would come in real handy right now
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi radz,
Radz writes: Because at some point the hairiness of hominids changed from the kind and thickness of apes to the kind and thickness of humans. We don't have fossil evidence of hairiness, as this stuff rarely fossilizes, so actually the hairiness of ancestor apes is assumed so this is based on an assumption, not evidence. Im wondering how many other aspects of evolution are based on conjecture, and how much really can be based on actual evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Radz writes: Because at some point the hairiness of hominids changed from the kind and thickness of apes to the kind and thickness of humans. We don't have fossil evidence of hairiness, as this stuff rarely fossilizes, so actually the hairiness of ancestor apes is assumed RADZ are there any current/living species where this is seen to occur? perhaps an example will help me visualize (my right brain speaking)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Helper,
welcome to evc
Helper writes: There has never been a 'perfectly' adapted organism for three reasons. Firstly enviroments change so characteristics which were selected for in a previous generation may be a hinderance to the next generation if the enviroment changes. it was said earlier that some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles...apparently they are the same and havnt changed in hundreds of thousands of years.So, what does this imply? Does it mean that the crocodile is perfectly adapted to its environment and therefore has not had need to evolve? Or Does it mean that evolution is not random but rather directed somehow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
firstly, 'boys n girls' was not meant in a derogatory way in the slightest...i would include myself in that
and i did look at your links and i guess i'm hoping you dont rest your belief of a 'tree of life' on those links this is what is said from the first link ....
quote: and this is what they say about the 'tree' in the your 2nd link
quote: this does not inspire confidence unfortunately, but thank you for trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
percy writes: True, but we cannot rule out aliens or magic, either. In science it is never a case of, "That which we cannot rule out must be true." Science is about finding evidence for your hypotheses. Unfortunately for intelligent design, it has no scientific evidence. you dont think its possible that evolutionary scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting the data to fit in with their preconceived ideas that life is a product of evolution and not creation? there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: First Monkeys are not apes. 2nd Gorillas aren't earlier apes, they are modern apes. Humans, chimps, gorillas & gibbons are all "modern apes" to use your word. The "earlier" apes are all extinct, that being the common ancestors and any intermediate species between the common ancestors & the current species. in the same way that i am the common ancestor of my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
im not sure that is a very good comparison Percy,
it is quite clear why bad things happen and why God allows it...if theologians havn't worked it out yet, then there is something wrong with their theology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi DevilsAdvocate,
i really want to see a 'tree' that shows the roots ...ie, where it all began two were posted from wiki, but i dont want one that doubts its own accuracy... i want one that is accurate and precise and one that can provide evidence for where the roots began perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DevilsAdvocate writes: You pulled a fast one on me. The old bait and switch or moving the goal posts argument. ... I take time out of my day to peruse the internet to look for some ape/human evolutionary trees and you pull this crap about wanting seeing the 'roots of the tree' on me. Thanks for wasting my time. now now, dont be like that! I actually did look at the web project...although i must admit, it wasnt as informative as i would have liked. It has lots of names and pictures but little explanation.
Devils Advocate writes: some (like myself) believe that abiogenesis as well as biological evolution are natural processes that don't need an initial supernatural designer. All three agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that biological evolution has and continues to occur; and all three are "unproven" hypothesis. Pasteur’s experiments of nearly a hundred years ago demolished that theory. If it is argued that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that is merely speculation. We should still see spontaneous generation of life from non living matter but it just doesnt happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi helper,
helper writes: Evolution is not random. It has no ultimate goal but natural selection gives a short term direction to the process. In the case of the crocodile as I mentioned stabilising selection has caused relative similarity for millions of years. its been mentioned by another poster (bluescat48) that evolution IS random hence why the crocodile is a remarkable example because how is it that in a world where all things evolve, this one species has not? That indicates that evolution is NOT random...it also implies that either its purposeful in that it occurs under some circumstances but not others, or its being directed somehow, or the current explanation is flawed and the reading of the fossil record is inaccurate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024