Why are there still apes?

[Shemjaza]

Earth existed for over 4.8 billion years however, there were only simple, bacteria like organisms until the late Cambrian period. It was the last 500 million years where the complex life appeared and all the diversification happened and I think it is too short a period for millions of species - 8.7 million species presently and researchers believe 99.9% species are extinct - to evolve (without Creator, of course).

Now that we talked about the life in the Cambrian period, there was this event known as Cambrian explosion which still remain as a thorn in the flesh for Evolutionists.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia.

How?

Environmental changes allowed for hard body parts and new niches opening. This both created the pressure for species to diversify and the opportunity for fossils to form. There is some evidence for complicated life before the Cambrian... just that there's very limited opportunity for fossils from this era to still be identifiable today.

A good modern example is the octopus. They are extremely complicated animals... but naturally they are very unlikely to leave fossil evidence because their soft bodies could just be consumed and destroyed.

 

[Shemjaza]

Let'em stick around.

They're still zebras.

(Right, Kylie? )

Wait a sec! Aren't they horse-kind?

 

[James A]

Because evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, with more holes (missing links) between the dots than Carter has liver pills.

See an ape here, and a man there? just draw a line between them and say the ape and the man came from a second line somewhere.

Totally agree.

No matter what the evidence or lack of evidence means, it will always be (mis) interpreted to prove the hypothesis they already assumed true - that hundreds of millions of well-defined species evolved naturally from a common ancestor.

If Evolution is true then we, humans, are mere chemical equations. And this pose some serious questions - why would a chemical equation falls in love with another chemical equations? why would a chemical equation give up its life ( excuse me, life..what?) to protect another?

Living beings especially humans have properties that cannot be explained physically. Naturally, these properties must have come from a metaphysical being which we call, God. If God exists and worked on the life, it can be concluded that He is the one who created and diversified it.

 

[James A]

How?

Not sure what "how" means. Are you saying that 500 million years is a period long enough for simple, bacteria to (naturally) evolve into hundreds of millions of complex species? What about the Cambrian explosion where phyla of all modern species appeared in a very short span of 5 - 25 million years? Darwin himself wrote in "origin of species" that the Cambrian explosion pose big challenge to his hypothesis.

Environmental changes allowed for hard body parts and new niches opening. This both created the pressure for species to diversify and the opportunity for fossils to form

Can you deny that the "environmental changes" were not caused by God? Generally, if operations of multiple agents results in a well-defined, cumulative result, we conclude the agents worked under an intelligent pre-plan ( or design)

A good modern example is the octopus. They are extremely complicated animals... but naturally they are very unlikely to leave fossil evidence because their soft bodies could just be consumed and destroyed.

We have fossil evidence of the primitive bacteria lived in the Cambrian period ( 500 million years ago) so, I am confused why octopus are unlikely to leave fossil evidence

 

[James A]

How, for instance, do you explain all the transitional fossils from reptile to mammals?

I think most Christians believe in Theistic Evolution.

Just curios, how many transitional fossils have we found which explains the alleged evolution of those primitive fishes into lizards (land animals) ?

 

[Shemjaza]

Not sure what "how" means. Are you saying that 500 million years is a period long enough for simple, bacteria to (naturally) evolve into hundreds of millions of complex species? What about the Cambrian explosion where phyla of all modern species appeared in a very short span of 5 - 25 million years? Darwin himself wrote in "origin of species" that the Cambrian explosion pose big challenge to his hypothesis.

How, as in "How is the Cambrian explosion a thorn in the flesh for Evolutionists?".

500 million years is a long time with a lot of generations, I don't see why it isn't long enough. Do you have a justification aside from personal incredulity?

Darwin worked almost 200 years ago... a lot of evidence has been found and research done since then.

He was clever scientist who presented a bunch of new explanations for evidence found in his time... he isn't the prophet of evolution who can not be questioned.

Can you deny that the "environmental changes" were not caused by God? Generally, if operations of multiple agents results in a well-defined, cumulative result, we conclude the agents worked under an intelligent pre-plan ( or design)

Does this make the beautiful intricate patterns made by ice or water deigned? We know how mutations work, stating after the fact that the end result with all its missteps and dead ends was all a part of a plan all along seems unjustified.

I'm also not claiming that it wasn't all the plan of God... I just haven't see evidence for that or a requirement for it.

We have fossil evidence of the primitive bacteria lived in the Cambrian period ( 500 million years ago) so, I am confused why octopus are unlikely to leave fossil evidence

Single celled creatures tend to be extremely populous and so can leave a mark collectively. for a soft bodied animal all you can rely on is getting an impressions. Nothing as complicated as an octopus existed... but evidence of precursors of moluscs and others have been found.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay is the extinction rate then the same as the current rate?

Why do you ask?

The extinction rate has varied with time. Currently the extinction rate is higher than usual.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think most Christians believe in Theistic Evolution.

Just curios, how many transitional fossils have we found which explains the alleged evolution of those primitive fishes into lizards (land animals) ?

Many. See List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is this all Evolution does--make it look like whatever one is trained to see?

Okay, so I'm sure that if I was "educated' and learned all the jargon involved, that I would begin to embrace the same beliefs as you.

It's like learning any kind of trade, or even a new game.

But, why does this carry more weight than a simple story?

Scientific theories begin with hypotheses - proposed explanations for the patterns we see in nature. These are, if you like, the stories. But scientific stories are not accepted unless they can be rigorously tested. Ideally there should be tests that could show them to be wrong.

Over the centuries, many explanations have been proposed for many different patterns of observations in nature. The ones that pass all the tests, those that make predictions that turn out to true, are kept and the rest are rejected. There are criteria for judging a good explanation, and the explanations that satisfy those criteria best are preferred.

The theory of evolution is a story that was originally proposed to explain the diversity of life we see today. It's been tested for around 150 years in many different ways, and the more we discover about nature, the better an explanation it becomes - we have discovered the mechanisms underlying it, and we have discovered that it explains far more than the diversity of species - among many other things it predicts the patterns of fossils we find, and it even predicts where we should expect to find particular transitional fossils.

In terms of stories, it's one of the best, if not the best, in all science. So it carries more weight than other stories because it's been thoroughly tested and found to be a useful tool in discovering and explaining what we see in the world.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you deny that the "environmental changes" were not caused by God?

No, I can't deny it - I do think they were not caused by God.

Generally, if operations of multiple agents results in a well-defined, cumulative result, we conclude the agents worked under an intelligent pre-plan ( or design)

That depends on the 'agents' ; all kinds of natural processes can interact to produce well-defined cumulative results without the need for intelligence, plans, or designs.

We have fossil evidence of the primitive bacteria lived in the Cambrian period ( 500 million years ago) so, I am confused why octopus are unlikely to leave fossil evidence

Bacterial fossils are usually not the bacteria themselves but the characteristic structures they leave behind (stromatolites or oncolites). Soft-bodied creatures are likely to be eaten or just rot away.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you think God deliberately created species separately to make it look like they evolved from a common ancestor.

Ya ... that's why He documented what He did, when He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Then preserved that documentation through all ages for mankind to read.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Mislabeling.

Huh?

In older rock layers we find fossils with jaws and ears that match the reptile pattern. As we go up we find a whole series of mammal-like reptiles with jaws and ears that look progressively more like mammals. As we go up further, we find the jaws and ears of mammals. No mammal was ever found in those lower layers.

And how do you explain all that? Mislabeling?

Are you serious?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Some think Cro-magnons and Neanderthals were transitionals.

I don't.

I believe they were diseased human beings.

Cro-magnon is just a name for humans that lived some 10,000 years ago. They were essentially the same as us.

Neanderthals appear to be a cousin species, a side path that died out.

When we talk about transitional hominids, we are talking about things like homo habilis and homo erectus. How can you explain that all these transitional fossils are found down there in layers far older than the oldest human?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Rates can be negotiated behind closed doors and adjusted accordingly.

Ok, so in school young minds are trained for a career in science, in which they are taught how to examine some aspect of the universe and make new discoveries.

Then they start working on scientific research. At this point they are left in on the little secret that none of this is about actually making discoveries? Instead they are taught that everything they print in the journals is just one big elaborate list of lies? They are taught that advancements in science are done, not by research, but by negotiations behind closed doors? And when I pick up a scientific journal, all that research, all those dates, all that analysis, all that evidence, is just fabrications designed to prove a point that was negotiated behind closed doors?

Well, Ok, then. How exactly did scientists manage to pull off such a massive conspiracy without anybody ever blowing the whistle on them?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How do you explain all the transitionals from the Model A to the Dodge Charger?

I explain all the progressive improvements in later model cars as the work of many engineers that find better ways of doing things. They learn from building previous cars.

And why is it, that when I look at the fossil record arranged in order of the date of the find, I find increasing varieties of life? Why do I find new complexities like the mammal ear or the human hand coming only after many iterations that got closer through time to modern humans?

Either mutations and selection were gradually modifying the design, or God was constantly at the drafting board.

Or you tell science to take a hike.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ya ... that's why He documented what He did, when He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it

...in the fossil record.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No matter what the evidence or lack of evidence means, it will always be (mis) interpreted to prove the hypothesis they already assumed true - that hundreds of millions of well-defined species evolved naturally from a common ancestor.

Or could it be that:

No matter what the evidence or lack of evidence means, it will always be (mis) interpreted [by creationists] to prove the hypothesis they already assumed true - that hundreds of millions of well-defined species [were created in one week].
​

I have observed people in this forum claim to follow the paragraph above. But I have never seen a serious evolutionist be so readily willing to completely disregard evidence.

If Evolution is true then we, humans, are mere chemical equations. And this pose some serious questions - why would a chemical equation falls in love with another chemical equations?

It is not the chemical equation that falls in love. It is the results of all those equations: a human being. Humans transcend the series of chemical reactions at the lowest level of their existence.

why would a chemical equation give up its life ( excuse me, life..what?) to protect another?

Because our DNA has built humans in such a way that this is what we do.

 

[Strathos]

Is this all Evolution does--make it look like whatever one is trained to see?

Okay, so I'm sure that if I was "educated' and learned all the jargon involved, that I would begin to embrace the same beliefs as you.

It's like learning any kind of trade, or even a new game.

But, why does this carry more weight than a simple story?

*Like the Gospel

False dichotomy. Why do you think ToE and the Gospel are mutually exclusive?

Ya ... that's why He documented what He did, when He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Then preserved that documentation through all ages for mankind to read.

This is the same attitude flat earthers have - the earth can't be round because their interpretation of scripture says it's not, regardless of all of the physical evidence present in the world actually created by God.

 

[Tone]

In terms of stories, it's one of the best, if not the best, in all science. So it carries more weight than other stories because it's been thoroughly tested and found to be a useful tool in discovering and explaining what we see in the world.

Well gee, if you replace "science" with "life" in the first sentence, you could be writing about the Bible, specifically, the Gospel.

 

[Tone]

False dichotomy. Why do you think ToE and the Gospel are mutually exclusive?

So, which is truer?