Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[DogmaHunter]

from the video: "I will be discussing speciation, a natural process by which new species emerge. Over the last hundred years there have been hundreds of documented, 'observed' examples of new species emerging. .. blah, blah, .. mosquitoes, moths, and of course Darwin's finches, .. and so on"

Question, for the hundredth time:
Did any of the 8 million scientists alive today, or those who have passed on over the past 100 years ever witness any of these 'species type' like a short beaked finch evolve a longer beak, .. huh? ANYONE, EVER, have they? Let alone observe any "distinct species like a gorilla speciate into another distinct species like a human".

1. yes, speciation has been observed

2. no, speciation is not the process that magically turns gorilla's into humans. If that were to be observerd, evolution theory as presently understood would be false.

3. no, no living scientists that gets to live some 79 years on average, has ever observed a process that takes millions of years.

This whole thing you shown me isn't even about Evolution in the general sense

It is evolution in the correct sense, instead of the strawman sense you can read about in creationist propaganda.

This doesn't even have anything to do with the "science of evolution", you know, where I am asking you guys to justify calling me and my children animals that belong to the ape family.

Humans are apes and animals, just like humans are mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes,...

Yes, the Bible tells us that both we humans and all the animals were created from the same source "dust" and by the same Designer and Creator

If the bible says that humans don't belong to the kingdom of animalia, then the bible is incorrect about that.

When you have a book saying X on the one hand and then objvective facts of reality saying Y on the other hand - then the book is wrong and the facts of reality are correct.

Yes, it really is that simple.

, .. and even a child, .. no, even an infant can tell the difference between an animal, and their own parents, which are human. Calling people animals is not nice!

Here's the biological definition of "animal":

Animal

Jump to: navigation, search
Definition

noun, plural: animals

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment


Yes, humans ARE animals.
You are welcome to point out how humans do not fit the above criteria, if you disagree.

"And That's Final!" right!?, .. I get it.

No, it's the opposite of "final". It means that it is unknown and that more work needs to be done to make it known.

But that there is not what a real scientist would say.

Except that it would. No scientist is going to tell you that we've solved the puzzle of abiogenesis. Because we haven't. We have some pieces of the puzzle, but not the complete puzzle. Not yet.

That is what a person defending his Religious blind faith would say.

That's what you do. YOU are the one claiming to know the origins of life...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They speculate that the early universe was simply, Electromagnetic radiation and the flux of neutrinos. If that is true what are the estimates of the quantity of radiation, and the number of neutrinos required to expand into two trillion GALAXIES?

Not sure who 'they' are, but the consensus model is that there was an extremely hot and dense state where the four fundamental forces may have been unified. As this expanded, gravity emerged, and the strong nuclear force, and quarks, electrons and neutrinos. A quark-gluon plasma formed (quarks are the particles that make up protons & neutrons, and gluons are the mediating particles of the strong nuclear force that binds quarks together). The electromagnetic and weak nuclear force emerged, quarks and antiquarks annihilated leaving a small surplus of quarks, which then formed protons and neutrons; and finally, atoms began to form - see Early Universe:

"In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas. Heavier atoms such as carbon, oxygen and iron, have since been continuously produced in the hearts of stars and catapulted throughout the universe in spectacular stellar explosions called supernovae."​

As I understand it, both these accounts are a simplified overview of the process model, which is considerably more detailed.

I don't know what the estimate is for the original energies, but the remnants of the quark-antiquark annihilation stage were about one in a billion quarks. This left-over billionth became the matter in the universe, so there would have been at least billion times more quarks than there are now, not to mention electrons and neutrinos.

The number of galaxies in the observable universe is thought to be up to 2 trillion, and there is good evidence that the universe is at least 250 times larger than what we can observe, and could well be nearly 400 times larger...

So, a lot of stuff

 

[DogmaHunter]

So I shouldn't confuse my daughters ex-boyfriends infatuation with skull & bones posters, t-shirts, drawings, .. with wrist slashing and other suicidal tendencies, correct?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Are you still talking about the random picture I choose for my avatar on this forum?
Would you feel more comfortable if I would use a picture of a kitty trying to eat a hamburger?

Maybe you should try and focus a bit on the discussion.

Funny?

Yes. Am I allowed to find certain things funny even when you don't? Is that okay with you?
Or should I ask permission first?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, .. so where are they? Remember the "color gradient" you guys shown me? Where are all those species between gorilla and human?

So, how many times has it been said that humans didn't descend from gorilla's?
Why are you still implying they did?

Is your case that weak, that you need to lie about what evolution is all about in order to argue against it?

Why is it that no creationists seems to be capable of some intellectual honesty?

Or why did all the human apes loose their hair, .. huh?
Or, where are all the different humans that have kept all their hair, but are as, or even more intelligent than us? What's so evolved about loosing our hair and having to clothe ourselves? You call that "Evolution"?

I know, how about the human-apes that kept their body hair, grew four arms, and another set of eyes in the back of their head? Tell me that wouldn't improve our survivability, and cut cost in buying clothes?

The questions you ask reveal an ignorance so profound that it becomes an exercise in futility to try and answer them. Your questions themselves imply things so false, it's not even funny.

Please... go read a book. Inform yourself on the very basics of the theory first, because this is just ridiculous....

"Why no eyes on the back of the head".... good grief.

Where does one even begin in responding to such nonsense?

 

[Arius]

That's not an "intellectual, rational objection to evolutionary biology", that's just a gap in our knowledge.

Once again, the exact species that represents the last common ancestor between humans and other primates is undiscovered. We don't know what it is.

Oh no you don't, it's not "just the last common ancestor", but EVERY Common ancestor. Look in this video with Dawkins

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Einstein-Zipped-Hoodie-Pullover-Hooded/dp/B00POEHTEM

there are four (4) just with apes, .. he is missing both the picture, and the description (name) of these primates. Got the skull & bones though, only can't show it so no one unschooled like me would ask what species it is?

Now, how does not knowing which precise species our this last common ancestor is invalidate evolutionary biology in general, or our knowledge of recent (~10-12 million year) primate and human evolutionary descent?

Biology is one thing, and a lot of surgeons worked on me over the years and I was glad they knew their biology well. What we're talking about is "Evolution", the claim that we have evolved from lower lifeform like amoeba to human, yet not one "Common Ancestor" is identified going back your 2.1 billion years, starting from the amoeba that just popped out of a wet rock into you primordial soup, up to present humans, where according to skull & bones worshipping Evolutionists, we are considered animals.

Arguing that a gap or unsolved problem in evolutionary biology invalidates the general body of evolutionary theory is like arguing that an unsolved equation invalidates an entire field of mathematics.

My friend, there is a "gap" in every other population of distinct species, not just the apes. Not One common ancestor is identified between the two distinct species. Like between the croc and the duck, between the lizard and the bird, between the gorillas and the human, .. and the list goes on eight million times, which is how many "populations of distinct species" we have today.

And yes, if an entire field of mathematics was based on an equation, and that equation was wrong, .. wouldn't you question that entire field of mathematics?

For instance Einstein's E=MC^2, the Mass Energy god-symbol, without it, Big-Bangers could not have their imaginary expanding vacuum in who-knows-what aka 'space/universe'? So the entire Hawking universe depends on this equation to be correct, and no one claims to fully understand it? Now how is that?

How could you base an entire theory on something like the Common Ancestor, and Einstein's E=MC^2 when no one really knows what they are?
Oh, and they are both equally useless, other than have rich white supremacist college kids wear it on their College sweater when they run across the street from the Collage to McDonalds to make fun of the poor black kids flipping burgers, and taking their orders.
Clothing with:
"E=MC^2"
"Evolution = science"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Einstein-Zipped-Hoodie-Pullover-Hooded/dp/B00POEHTEM
So us sub-humans flipping burgers can say: "Oooh, man, those guys must be smart!"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I love how Evolutionist evade answering, you had to invent a whole new language. Look how you phrase that: "but it would be visually similar to a mix between Australopithecus sediba and Australopithecus afarensis - probably very close to Nyanzapithecus alesi"

similar to
mix between
probably
very close to
Why give these; probably very close to the similar mix between creatures such unpronounceable names like; Australopithecus sediba and Australopithecus Nyanzapithecus alesi ?

Why not simple names like 'Lucy', or 'Mary'? Let me guess, because people could then easily refer to Lucy and ask what species it was, that's why.

Like I said to you Evolutionists before; "your Jedi mind tricks do not work on me, the force is strong with this one!" That is, this one is blessed by the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Wickedness, .. like the Trinity doctrine, Evolution teaching and the Jesuit created Big-Bang story!

Wearing your ignorance like armour is a little sad, to be honest. If you struggle to understand English the most sensible course of action would be to stop posting. Instead you persist with these painful demonstrations of benightedness. I'm inclined to say you're trolling - would you care to deny that and simply admit to arrant ineptitude?

 

[Arius]

1. yes, speciation has been observed

2. no, speciation is not the process that magically turns gorilla's into humans. If that were to be observerd, evolution theory as presently understood would be false.

3. no, no living scientists that gets to live some 79 years on average, has ever observed a process that takes millions of years.



It is evolution in the correct sense, instead of the strawman sense you can read about in creationist propaganda.




Humans are apes and animals, just like humans are mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes,...



If the bible says that humans don't belong to the kingdom of animalia, then the bible is incorrect about that.

When you have a book saying X on the one hand and then objvective facts of reality saying Y on the other hand - then the book is wrong and the facts of reality are correct.

Yes, it really is that simple.



Here's the biological definition of "animal":

Animal

Jump to: navigation, search
Definition

noun, plural: animals

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

Yes, humans ARE animals.
You are welcome to point out how humans do not fit the above criteria, if you disagree.

No, it's the opposite of "final". It means that it is unknown and that more work needs to be done to make it known.

Except that it would. No scientist is going to tell you that we've solved the puzzle of abiogenesis. Because we haven't. We have some pieces of the puzzle, but not the complete puzzle. Not yet.

That's what you do. YOU are the one claiming to know the origins of life...

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I was created in my Creators image, not in the image of a gorilla. May God forgive you for calling our Creator an animal, or confusing Him with many of the pagan animal gods! You are all in my prayers.

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field.

God created the animals to be helpers, pets for Adam, and this is exactly how it remained even after 6,000 years. Even an infant can tell the difference between an 'animal', and a human. And here we have this grave robbing and Skull & Bones worshipping religion called Evolution calling Gods creation man, an animal.

Wow, so you guys reported me for repeating my question about this Religions claim that before a species changes into another species, there is this mysterious "Common Ancestor" that you can't, or you wont tell me what species it was?

It's clear that the lie in Evolution has been revealed, and it is there, in the "Common Ancestor", because if you tell me the kind of species, if it's different than the New species, I would ask: "How did that population change into that new species, .. I don't care how slowly, or gradually, it had to change into that new species one time or another!"

If the species is the SAME as the New species, then what is this Evolution story about? Everything stays the same, the gorilla stays a gorilla, and humans stay human.

So no, humans are NOT animals and I have shown you historical evidence how evil, and what pain, and even death calling, and especially labeling humans as animal can, and has caused! Millions have been murdered, their heads boiled down to use their sculls to demonstrate this evil idea, people been put in zoos, humiliated by being compared to animals, and I am here to make you aware of the crimes against humanity that this belief system has caused for hundreds of years, which, with the help of other Believers has to stop!

 

[Astrophile]

Nice try, you are conflating others claims I have pointed out with what I asked?

Now try to explain to us Creationist about this:

Time 0:21 Dawkins points to a "T" on his family photo collage and says; "A common Ancestor there".

Can you tell us what species this "common ancestor" is?

The line goes down, then turns right passing by another "Common Ancestor" on to a gorilla. You can tell me what that other "common ancestor" is also while you're at it, please?

Good luck, and thank you.

I've told you before. The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was probably something like Orrorin tugenensis or Sahelanthropus tchadensis. The last common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas may have been something like Nakalipithecus nayakamai or Samburupithecus kiptalami. Pierolapithecus catalaunicus has also been mentioned as a possible common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and perhaps orangutans - see Pierolapithecus - Wikipedia . It is not that the common ancestors are 'missing links' in the fossil record; it is more that there are a lot of similar fossil species that could be the common ancestors, and scientists haven't yet got enough information to disentangle their relationships.

 

[USincognito]

Why not simple names like 'Lucy', or 'Mary'? Let me guess, because people could then easily refer to Lucy and ask what species it was, that's why.

Maybe, instead of asking a bunch of silly questions, you could use the search engine on your computer to look stuff up. For instance "Lucy" isn't a species and it's not a scientific name. Like Turkana Boy, it's a nickname. Lucy is specimen AL-288-1 of species Australopithecus afarensis while Turkana boy is WT-15000 of species Homo ergaster.

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe, instead of asking a bunch of silly questions, you could use the search engine on your computer to look stuff up. For instance "Lucy" isn't a species and it's not a scientific name. Like Turkana Boy, it's a nickname. Lucy is specimen AL-288-1 of species Australopithecus afarensis while Turkana boy is WT-15000 of species Homo ergaster.

He's also had that explained in detail multiple times.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is mislabeling someone Troll within Forum Rules?

Just because you Evolutionists have gotten away with calling your none-evidenced religious belief 'science', and labeling humans as animals, doesn't mean you can now label me a Troll just because you can't answer a simple question on your un-scientific belief!?

Or can you?

No, it's because you are deliberately misrepresenting what the theory of evolution says, and you also go out of your way to equate evolution and anyone who accepts it as science as being on the same level as racists, Nazis and the Soviets. That's why we call you a troll because no-one who wanted to have a serious talk about evolution and its place in science would stoop to those levels.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What species is the "Common Ancestor",

You've been told repeatedly: WE DON'T KNOW.

 

[Shemjaza]

Just One Simple Question remains to be answered by Evolutionists, and it is:

What species is the "Common Ancestor", .. actually let's stick with the modern-times leader of this Religion; Crusader Richard Dawkins in the video I keep posting:

as you can see, there are four (4) unspecified "Common Ancestors" in the chart, which split one distinct species from another distinct species, .. my simple question is for all you Evolutionists here, is "What type of distinct species were they?"

I mean they had to be a species between the animals in those picture and that white suburban housewife, right? And you have chimp, bonobo, gorilla and orangutan, so it can't be something like a lizard, or a giraffe can it?
Why is this so hard to answer? (We both know why don't we? So yeah, report me again, maybe I will get kicked off the Forum and you won't have to answer, .. because you can't.)

And this:

"As for the common ancestor Dawkins is referring to, we don't know, it hasn't been discovered yet as far as I am aware. Fossils of apes and their ancestors are very rare."

......................

"We certainly don't know every detail in the story of human evolution but the pieces of evidence we do have all point towards the undeniable conclusion we evolved from an ape-like ancestor."

...........................

According to Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor - Wikipedia , it was perhaps something like Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Is NOT an answer. Look in the video, the line starts off from an orangutan, another from gorilla, so they have to been a distinct species like them, Do you guys want me to pick the distinct species for your ancestors?
Fine.
Here it is, Orrorin tugenensis
Do you guys agree?
And here, I picked an actual photograph of this illusive creature, would you agree to put this up on Dawkins family-collage in that "missing link" spot??
The Apeman of the Amazon - do these 75-year-old pictures show man's missing link...or the work of a very good make-up artist? | Daily Mail Online



Agreed?


God bless you all, and I really mean that.

You keep shifting around your requests. Do you want the last common ancestor of all great apes now?

Because yes, that's a different creature to the common ancestor of humans and chimps. You seem to be acting like this is some kind of gotcha.

What was this creature, well from genetics and studying all the modern branches of apes we can surmise that it was probably a tail less furry guy living in and around trees. Probably resembled old world monkeys more then the modern apes.

We don't have a fossil because fossils are rare and fossils of forest dwellers are rarer still. Evidence indicates it existed and all the lies, scorn and filth from you won't change that.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

...you guys won't specify the specific species I requested)

The answer, setting aside the assumptions and misrepresentations loaded into your question and the fact that it has been given to you, is "We don't know" and we're not afraid to say that. It keeps us looking for answers to our questions. Perhaps you could go take some college courses on biology, paleontology, etc, get a degree, and actually contribute to the field. Who knows, maybe you could be the one to overturn the whole theory of evolution that you hate so much and not only affirm your worldview but pickup a Nobel Prize and legendary scientific accolades and notoriety in the process! Or you can just keep posting questions on the internet. Totally up to you.

 

[Astrophile]

I mean they had to be a species between the animals in those picture and that white suburban housewife, right? And you have chimp, bonobo, gorilla and orangutan, so it can't be something like a lizard, or a giraffe can it?

Would you be more willing to accept that we share common ancestors with chimpanzees, gorilla and orangutans if the picture of the nice-looking 'white suburban housewife' representing humans was replaced by this picture?

 

[Arius]

So, how many times has it been said that humans didn't descend from gorilla's?
Why are you still implying they did?

.. From what he calls the "Common Ancestor", the line on Dawkins chart goes to the gorilla, and every Evolution documentary points to gorilla changing into a chimp like creature. So "gorilla-chimp like, bonobo-human" is what were looking for!?

Is your case that weak, that you need to lie about what evolution is all about in order to argue against it?

Why is it that no creationists seems to be capable of some intellectual honesty?

Wow, I know a lot of good, kind, honest creationists, and they would never intentionally lie about the questions they have for atheistic-evolutionists, and neither would I! But I know a lot of atheists who show a heated resentment against the Bible, and those who hold the value of what the Bible teaches especially regarding "honesty, responsibility for your actions, rules and laws etc." lie about many things, without any regret.

The questions you ask reveal an ignorance so profound that it becomes an exercise in futility to try and answer them. Your questions themselves imply things so false, it's not even funny.

See your reaction to things you can't answer?
Did your goddess Mother Nature sit down first and plan out how a human should look like; two hands of equal size on both sides of the body, not to grow arms like she does tree branches, two eyes, when she knows that at least two more in the back of our heads would be really helpful especially in the ape-survival of the fittest stages, .. huh, .. did she?
No.
She don't care one way or another since there is no plan, or design, nor care one way or the other, so answer me why we didn't she grow eyes in the back of our head?
But the bigger question is, where are all the horrible mutants that supposed to be going extinct, like those that can't stand up on their hind legs and walk upright because of the pain it causes them stepping on their eyeballs that's mutating on the bottom of their feet, .. huh?
You know, the color gradient between the two distinct species, specifically the "Red species and the Blue species", where the millions of in-between are slowly and agonizingly dying out like your "common ancestors" did? Where Are they??

Please... go read a book. Inform yourself on the very basics of the theory first, because this is just ridiculous....

Just as ridiculous as this Evolution story is. What did you expect, that I wouldn't point out the plethora of ridiculous claims in this story falsely labeled a scientific-theory?

"Why no eyes on the back of the head".... good grief.

"Good grief"? It's a theory of mine, ok Charlie Brown? Look, what if those archeological discoveries where they find a bunch of skull and bones together in one spot actually belong to the same "common ancestor", that, caused by the chaotic environment grew many arms and legs, and for some reason died out!? There should be millions of them. Actually, since it's been 2.1 billion years of this chaotic environment, we should see Billions of these horrible mutations between two species going on right now, dying out each day, so where are they?

Where does one even begin in responding to such nonsense?

Let me provide you with a good solution; "stay away from it, ridicule it, mock it, but don't go there because you'll just dig deeper for your Evolution grave."

 

[Jimmy D]

.. From what he calls the "Common Ancestor", the line on Dawkins chart goes to the gorilla, and every Evolution documentary points to gorilla changing into a chimp like creature. So "gorilla-chimp like, bonobo-human" is what were looking for!?



Wow, I know a lot of good, kind, honest creationists, and they would never intentionally lie about the questions they have for atheistic-evolutionists, and neither would I! But I know a lot of atheists who show a heated resentment against the Bible, and those who hold the value of what the Bible teaches especially regarding "honesty, responsibility for your actions, rules and laws etc." lie about many things, without any regret.



See your reaction to things you can't answer?
Did your goddess Mother Nature sit down first and plan out how a human should look like; two hands of equal size on both sides of the body, not to grow arms like she does tree branches, two eyes, when she knows that at least two more in the back of our heads would be really helpful especially in the ape-survival of the fittest stages, .. huh, .. did she?
No.
She don't care one way or another since there is no plan, or design, nor care one way or the other, so answer me why we didn't she grow eyes in the back of our head?
But the bigger question is, where are all the horrible mutants that supposed to be going extinct, like those that can't stand up on their hind legs and walk upright because of the pain it causes them stepping on their eyeballs that's mutating on the bottom of their feet, .. huh?
You know, the color gradient between the two distinct species, specifically the "Red species and the Blue species", where the millions of in-between are slowly and agonizingly dying out like your "common ancestors" did? Where Are they??



Just as ridiculous as this Evolution story is. What did you expect, that I wouldn't point out the plethora of ridiculous claims in this story falsely labeled a scientific-theory?



"Good grief"? It's a theory of mine, ok Charlie Brown? Look, what if those archeological discoveries where they find a bunch of skull and bones together in one spot actually belong to the same "common ancestor", that, caused by the chaotic environment grew many arms and legs, and for some reason died out!? There should be millions of them. Actually, since it's been 2.1 billion years of this chaotic environment, we should see Billions of these horrible mutations between two species going on right now, dying out each day, so where are they?



Let me provide you with a good solution; "stay away from it, ridicule it, mock it, but don't go there because you'll just dig deeper for your Evolution grave."

It’s getting a bit old now mate.

 

[pitabread]

nm.

 

[Arius]

The answer, setting aside the assumptions and misrepresentations loaded into your question and the fact that it has been given to you, is "We don't know" and we're not afraid to say that. It keeps us looking for answers to our questions. Perhaps you could go take some college courses on biology, paleontology, etc, get a degree, and actually contribute to the field. Who knows, maybe you could be the one to overturn the whole theory of evolution that you hate so much and not only affirm your worldview but pickup a Nobel Prize and legendary scientific accolades and notoriety in the process! Or you can just keep posting questions on the internet. Totally up to you.

Thank you sir, the thing is that the entire so called theory of Evolution hangs on the "Common Ancestor" creature, and to put it in all the schools world wide with a foundation like "We don't know" and teach it as science, well there is something very fishy about this concept, wouldn't you say?

Or at least say the truth: "Some of us who hate Religions and their gods (and I would be right there with you on that) believe that we humans evolved over the 2.1 billion years from a lower life form starting with amoeba. But honestly we don't have ANY evidence of this except that a lot of the different species of animals look alike. And a lot of humans look like apes, chimps and gorillas, and even their DNA is very close, so we figure we may have evolved from these lower lifeforms? But since we have absolutely no evidence that any individual distinct species evolved/speciated/mutated into another distinct species, we really cannot continue spending precious funds on such ideology."
And it remains just one of the tens of thousands of Religions out there, it's legal, and even OK in this world. Heck, we have Scientology right?

(Besides, I never sought notoriety, matter of fact I sometimes want to disappear, get the hell out of this world. I don't feel I belong, never did, you know what I mean?)

Chimp-like, gorilla-like that evolved from gorilla is not an answer, it is either human, chimp or gorilla.

We have hundreds of dog-like species, from a Great Dane to a teacup poodle, they are dog. And some, look like their human owners:

They Say That Dogs And Their Owners Start To Look Alike... And Here's Proof In 20 Hysterical Photos. LOL.

But I wouldn't go far as starting a theory that since dogs have evolved into so many different varieties, and look like humans too, maybe we evolved from dog, maybe they are our missing link, .. or common ancestor?

So there is no basis for me to take some college courses on biology, paleontology, etc, get a degree, and actually contribute to the field of Evolution theory, since it would be a total waste of time and energy, not to mention money of which I have none. Now Biology itself would be ok, but Evolutionary Biology, .. why? Have to have something to go by first, right?

No matter what other-than-human distinct species the common ancestor was, you guys said it a hundred times, it will remain that specific distinct species because no species of any kind ever evolves/speciate into another completely different species, even over the entire span of your Evolution of the 2.1 billion years, and if one did change/morph/speciate into another distinct species, that would prove the Evolution theory WRONG!
Now what part of my above question is an assumption or misrepresentation?

What would make me want to take college courses in something as nonsensical as this theory is? I would understand if Darwin or Dawkins (or any of the existing 8 million scientists in this world, or in the past 2.1 billion years) has "observed" an individual distinct species of a kind evolve, speciate into another distinct species of that kind, now we could have a basis, a foundation to build on, you know what I mean?

Thank you for your honesty: "We don't know"!

We don't know why evolution is called science, and taught in schools as a theory, because what we KNOW is that evolution of one distinct species into another distinct species NEVER happened.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thank you sir, the thing is that the entire so called theory of Evolution hangs on the "Common Ancestor" creature, and to put it in all the schools world wide with a foundation like "We don't know" and teach it as science, well there is something very fishy about this concept, wouldn't you say?

Or at least say the truth: "Some of us who hate Religions and their gods (and I would be right there with you on that) believe that we humans evolved over the 2.1 billion years from a lower life form starting with amoeba. But honestly we don't have ANY evidence of this except that a lot of the different species of animals look alike. And a lot of humans look like apes, chimps and gorillas, and even their DNA is very close, so we figure we may have evolved from these lower lifeforms? But since we have absolutely no evidence that any individual distinct species evolved/speciated/mutated into another distinct species, we really cannot continue spending precious funds on such ideology."
And it remains just one of the tens of thousands of Religions out there, it's legal, and even OK in this world. Heck, we have Scientology right?

(Besides, I never sought notoriety, matter of fact I sometimes want to disappear, get the hell out of this world. I don't feel I belong, never did, you know what I mean?)

Chimp-like, gorilla-like that evolved from gorilla is not an answer, it is either human, chimp or gorilla.

We have hundreds of dog-like species, from a Great Dane to a teacup poodle, they are dog. And some, look like their human owners:

They Say That Dogs And Their Owners Start To Look Alike... And Here's Proof In 20 Hysterical Photos. LOL.

But I wouldn't go far as starting a theory that since dogs have evolved into so many different varieties, and look like humans too, maybe we evolved from dog, maybe they are our missing link, .. or common ancestor?

So there is no basis for me to take some college courses on biology, paleontology, etc, get a degree, and actually contribute to the field of Evolution theory, since it would be a total waste of time and energy, not to mention money of which I have none. Now Biology itself would be ok, but Evolutionary Biology, .. why? Have to have something to go by first, right?

No matter what other-than-human distinct species the common ancestor was, you guys said it a hundred times, it will remain that specific distinct species because no species of any kind ever evolves/speciate into another completely different species, even over the entire span of your Evolution of the 2.1 billion years, and if one did change/morph/speciate into another distinct species, that would prove the Evolution theory WRONG!
Now what part of my above question is an assumption or misrepresentation?

What would make me want to take college courses in something as nonsensical as this theory is? I would understand if Darwin or Dawkins (or any of the existing 8 million scientists in this world, or in the past 2.1 billion years) has "observed" an individual distinct species of a kind evolve, speciate into another distinct species of that kind, now we could have a basis, a foundation to build on, you know what I mean?

Thank you for your honesty: "We don't know"!

We don't know why evolution is called science, and taught in schools as a theory, because what we KNOW is that evolution of one distinct species into another distinct species NEVER happened.

You just love making up complete rubbish don't you?