EvC Forum: Direct and indirect evidence in science

Welcome to the fray!

There is no evidence that human beings "evolved" from apes as this response very wrongly assumes. Most scientists believe that both apes and human beings share a common ancestor at least 7 million plus years ago, that was neither an ape or a human.

When I was studying evolution and fossil man in graduate school my professor used to refer to the some of the early primates as "ape-toothed monkeys" as they had characteristics of both groups. Monkeys and apes diverged about 25 million years ago, and from that point on it is fair to refer to all critters on one side of the divide as monkeys and the other side as apes--right up to the present.

It would be just as accurate to say that apes evolved from humans, rather than the other way around, although neither statement is scientifically accurate.

There is no evidence at all that apes evolved from humans, so your simile doesn't work.

Even Richard Dawkins, who consistently lies about the known evidence and the well-established historical method of science in relation to evidence, agrees that it is scientifically absurd to say that humans evolved from apes.

Humans did not descend from modern-day apes. They evolved from a common ancestor.

Such an assumption assumes a) That apes haven't themselves changed;

Apes have changed over time.

b) That humans are more "advanced" than apes

Humans are more advanced than apes.

and c) That there is an over all advancement in species design and adaptation.

Both species have "advanced," if by that you mean adapted to changing conditions.

There is no scientific evidence that any of these three are true

Sorry, all three of those statements appear to be accurate.

and on the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that ALL forms of life are more or less equally well adapted for their own particular set of reproductive and other survival circumstances.

Your statement is not accurate. While all surviving species are somewhat adapted to their surroundings, some are failing and in danger of becoming extinct. Look at the California Condor. That species is only hanging on because of tremendous efforts by wildlife biologists.

And probably millions of species have already failed and become extinct; I've seen an estimate, if I remember correctly, that some 98% of all species that ever lived are already extinct.

Various species will span the full range from well-adapted to poorly-adapted, and this may change as conditions change and the different species try to adapt. Some will succeed and some will fail. So again, your statement is inaccurate.

What there is scientific evidence for is, that God creates life to adapt and change, so that life itself can survive, which life has managed to do quite well on earth in spite of many major cataclismic events.

That is a religious belief, not something for which there is scientific evidence.

The concept of "species" is an artifical invention of science, which has no relationship to the actual reality of either life or how life functions. Life marches on just fine, regardless of whether we call all snakes a "snake" or, we divide snakes up into various "species". Artificial divisions invented by human beings have no relationship whatsoever to how life either came to be or functions in true reality. Any first-year philosophy student knows better than that.

And any first-year biology student knows that while the classifications we make are arbitrary, that they are based on the best available data at the time--and that data is based on reality. By including the fossil and DNA records we can extend that data back through time, and discover the ancestry of the various species.

Recently DNA studies have changed the lineages of a number of species--scientists routinely correct their mistakes to make their descriptions and analyses as accurate as possible as nobody wants to rely on false data!

I look forward to your response, and again, welcome to the fray!

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

6 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, Rahvin, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,865 Year: 4,122/9,624 Month: 993/974 Week: 320/286 Day: 41/40 Hour: 7/6