Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[rjs330]

No, there is no debate. The evidence is settled. We have reached a point where only the finer details of the process are now analysed.

And this is the case with ALL scientific research and the theories which result. We begin with a crude understanding of phenomena and then we gradually refine our view as more evidence is subjected to more scrutiny. For example, Newton gave us a basic understanding of the forces involved with gravity - this understanding works quite well in most everyday circumstances. But it breaks down on the very large and very small scales. Enter Einstein and the band of modern physicists who have provided a deeper level of knowlege and a better grasp of the theory.

No debate? I thought that's what we were doing. Its amazing the amount of assumption and supposition in evolution. You have your so called evidence and assume it shows evolution. You suppose it shows evolution when you still can't run an experiment where a creature turns into another creature. Why, because it's already occured according to,evolution. Yet no observation has occurred.

 

[Speedwell]

No debate? I thought that's what we were doing. Its amazing the amount of assumption and supposition in evolution. You have your so called evidence and assume it shows evolution. You suppose it shows evolution when you still can't run an experiment where a creature turns into another creature. Why, because it's already occured according to,evolution. Yet no observation has occurred.

Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the field.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I remember an old program featuring Richard Dawkins.

Is this the one? He's explaining what common ancestry means and destroying the ridiculous "But why are there still chimpanzees?" strawman that creationists use.

But there's nothing there. Which is pointed out to him by the person to whom he is speaking

The evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming, especially when we look at DNA. 99.9% of ERV insertions in the human genome are shared with chimpanzees. That is only possible if we share a common ancestor. We also have a large hominid fossil record. I'm not sure if the above video is the one your referring to. Perhaps the one you are talking about is the "Show me the evidence" lady, which Dawkins repeatedly shows her. It's not his fault she doesn't understand science.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You suppose it shows evolution when you still can't run an experiment where a creature turns into another creature

Evolution takes place in populations not individuals. If you are looking for an experiment where one creature turns into another creature before your very eyes, you'll never see that because that is not how evolution works.

If I am off base here, could you please describe what "creature to another creature" you'd want to see in the lab or nature? This should clear things up for how much you understand about evolution.

 

[SteveB28]

Science doesn't deal with proof but evidence.
I remember an old program featuring Richard Dawkins. He was trying to explain the evolution of humans from apes. There was a tree chart on the wall behind him showing the stages from ape to man. He points to this blank line amid all the other lines that were labeled implying a graduation of the species from ape to human. He says that blank line is the ancestor that tied it all together.
But there's nothing there. Which is pointed out to him by the person to whom he is speaking. Yes, he says, but that's what we believe was the link that happened making it possible for todays humans to exist.

It was great.

If you view a car entering a tunnel and a minute later you see it exit from the other end, is it reasonable to deduce that the car travelled through the length of the tunnel, even though you didn't see it?

 

[Speedwell]

If you view a car entering a tunnel and a minute later you see it exit from the other end, is it reasonable to deduce that the car travelled through the length of the tunnel, even though you didn't see it?

Not if it says in the Bible it didn't.

 

[SteveB28]

Answer the question (put up, or...).

I'm waiting for you to "put up" your .....'proof'. I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long, long time......

 

[ScottA]

I'm waiting for you to "put up" your .....'proof'. I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long, long time......

Then you fail...for not understanding the terms. Your loss.

 

[SteveB28]

No debate? I thought that's what we were doing.

No, what YOU are doing is simply refusing to acknowledge anything which doesn't mesh with your belief. That isn't debate.....its wilful ignorance.

You suppose it shows evolution when you still can't run an experiment where a creature turns into another creature.

Please show ANY part of evolutionary theory which states such a ridiculous claim.

Why, because it's already occured according to,evolution. Yet no observation has occurred.

If you are referring to the formation of new SPECIES, we have abundant evidence of that occurring....in real time!

 

[rjs330]

Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the field.

That's not evolution as we are expected to believe. We are expected to believe that all living things came from one thing. Thus one thing changes into something it was not from the beginning. What was a spider before it was a spider and what is a spider evolving into?

 

[SteveB28]

Then you fail...for not understanding the terms. Your loss.

Fine. Continue to talk to yourself....

 

[bhsmte]

Then you fail...for not understanding the terms. Your loss.

I don't think he lost too much.

 

[rjs330]

If you view a car entering a tunnel and a minute later you see it exit from the other end, is it reasonable to deduce that the car travelled through the length of the tunnel, even though you didn't see it?

But the car was a car when it went in and came out. It didn't go in a car and come out a tank.

 

[SteveB28]

That's not evolution as we are expected to believe. We are expected to believe that all living things came from one thing. Thus one thing changes into something it was not from the beginning. What was a spider before it was a spider and what is a spider evolving into?

Oh good grief....!

Creationism.....the only field in which you get points for bone-headed ignorance!

 

[SteveB28]

But the car was a car when it went in and came out. It didn't go in a car and come out a tank.

So what? Your argument hinged on 'missing time'. That we couldn't see the transition from one stage to another because we weren't there. Just as we couldn't see the transition of the car from one location to another.

But our evidence is overwhelming that it must have happened....

 

[rjs330]

Oh good grief....!

Creationism.....the only field in which you get points for bone-headed ignorance!

Please answer the question. What was a spider before it was a spider and what is it evolving into? That's the premise of evolution. Something changed into something it didn't start out,to be. Humans were not always humans. We were something else in the beginning and we are evolving into,something else.

 

[bhsmte]

So what? Your argument hinged on 'missing time'. That we couldn't see the transition from one stage to another because we weren't there. Just as we couldn't see the transition of the car from one location to another.

But our evidence is overwhelming that it must have happened....

In some, ideology take priority of evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

But the car was a car when it went in and came out. It didn't go in a car and come out a tank.

Does that car have offspring, with their own mutations?

 

[Speedwell]

That's not evolution as we are expected to believe. We are expected to believe that all living things came from one thing. Thus one thing changes into something it was not from the beginning. What was a spider before it was a spider and what is a spider evolving into?

Do you mean, what was the ancestor species of what are now the various species of spiders?
A single individual spider will never be anything but a spider. Its remote descendants may well be something else.

 

[SteveB28]

Do you mean, what was the ancestor species of what are now the various species of spiders?
A single individual spider will never be anything but a spider. Its remote descendants may well be something else.

Thank you! This is the point that I had hoped our very confused friend might eventually appreciate......