Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.
You are correct.
Here is what you need to know
Upvote
0
Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.
Would you hire a "mechanic" who refused to believe how an internal combustion engine functions, and instead relied on prayer to fix your car?
Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.
Isn't a Tsunami something they call 'an act of God'?Science cannot see into the past very far.
It is much better at predicting tsunamis
May science teachers that believe teach evolution, they either believe it because it was taught as an undisputed fact, and it was made clear that if they want to have a career in science, they must accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. If not, they will be blocked from being a teacher of science, or denied Tenure. This is the scientific method that evolution becomes a fact.
Do you care to debate me on the Evolution - Fact or fiction.
And Evolution is the bible of, and the religion of Secular Humanism.
Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.
Jessica does not have prehensile feet. Squeezing something between your toes is not the same as grasping something with your feet.Oh no? When needs must.........
check this out.
Jessica Cox An armless Girl gets a Pilot License | SpeakBindas
I haven't thoroughly gone over all of it, but that's not the impression I got. I don't see the details of modern apes feet being as relevant as their overall structure and genetic makeup as a definition of grouping.The thing most curious is that reading this post the "sensible and well argued point" came from the Creationist responder, while the pro-evolutionist was left grasping at straws only to pretend they are the only ones to follow the facts.
I think you misunderstand how capable non human apes are of moving bipedally.The key aspect is "last common ancestor" between say the chimpanzee and human. If evolution were true, both would share a relatively recent LCA, some form of Ape, so we should have a creature with a proto-human foot as an offshoot which developed into humans. Such an animal would have had a foot that was 90% Ape and 10% human, with lots in between until we get to 10% Ape and 90% human. As the foot transitions it has to lose its ability to grasp 100,000's of years before it gains an ability to walk upright. Such a creature is unviable, so Natural Selection would have predicated against it, and this lineage would thus die out. This is exactly what the fossil record proves - no animal with proto-human feet has ever been found, much to the lament of academics in this field, which we know about because this has been published in the relevant specialty journals. This journal article was an excellent description of the differences between ape feet and human feet, but a list of differences and required changes is not proof such changes occurred. The authors seemed to believe otherwise and that a mere list of change was proof of change.
The scale of change required for bipedalism is massive, the skeletal structure needs wholesale redesign, the routing of and layout of tendons and muscles has to change .... this list just goes on and on. I was a design Engineer, and am now in Project Management and would suggest that the redesign of the Boeing 737 was trivial compared to the redesign proposed when moving from quadrupedalism to bipedalism.
Given the hips it is totally a biped, so you are clearly wrong about the ape foot structure being a problem for bipedalism.Although apes can move bipedally, and humans may move quadrapedally, that isn't relevant; its the fundamentally different structures between an ape's foot and human's foot, and not just the bones, but ligament and muscle layout and design. The Australopithecus foot in your diagram is that of an ape, which is fine and there is nothing wrong with that, but its an ape, it would be able to swing from a tree by its feet.
The key aspect is "last common ancestor" between say the chimpanzee and human. If evolution were true, both would share a relatively recent LCA, some form of Ape, so we should have a creature with a proto-human foot as an offshoot which developed into humans. Such an animal would have had a foot that was 90% Ape and 10% human, with lots in between until we get to 10% Ape and 90% human.
As the foot transitions it has to lose its ability to grasp 100,000's of years before it gains an ability to walk upright.
Such a creature is unviable, so Natural Selection would have predicated against it, and this lineage would thus die out.
This is exactly what the fossil record proves - no animal with proto-human feet has ever been found, much to the lament of academics in this field, which we know about because this has been published in the relevant specialty journals.
The scale of change required for bipedalism is massive, the skeletal structure needs wholesale redesign, the routing of and layout of tendons and muscles has to change .... this list just goes on and on. I was a design Engineer, and am now in Project Management and would suggest that the redesign of the Boeing 737 was trivial compared to the redesign proposed when moving from quadrupedalism to bipedalism.
I know this is well past the point, but I might as well address this while I have a moment.Jessica does not have prehensile feet. Squeezing something between your toes is not the same as grasping something with your feet.
Can Jessica do this?
No, she cannot.
For those without arms, the feet can become incredibly dextrous.Humans can grasp things with their toes. Not well, mind you, not heavy things, not as well as their fingers - but they can grasp them. By definition, humans have prehensile feet.