- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,976
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So since its easier to understand "God blew on some dirt and out popped Adam," that God must have created humans that way??? Do you understand nuclear fusion? Brain surgery? Aerodynamics? Do you question them as well, because its not at the level of a children's book??
I thought we were evolving a tail, not losing one. They are very useful you know.
Losing. We are definitely in the losing phase of tailness.
If we were on the ascending phase, gaining a tail through evolution, then the proto-tail we would have would be even now being used successfully in ways that would be enhanced as the proto-tail came ever closer to being a full tail. Clearly, that is not happening, and so we are not gaining a tail through evolution.
Science is a methodology, one that has garnered trust because it has been demonstrated to work.
Why would created life fall into a nested hierarchy?
It works better because men are selfish sinning lairs.
All have sinned.
Science just calls on men to publish their claims so that
other men can root out lies, bias, and deception found in all research.
It has no hold on truth or even attempts to.
It is a method that assumes men are sinners.
That's why we created it.
Losing. We are definitely in the losing phase of tailness.
If we were on the ascending phase, gaining a tail through evolution, then the proto-tail we would have would be even now being used successfully in ways that would be enhanced as the proto-tail came ever closer to being a full tail. Clearly, that is not happening, and so we are not gaining a tail through evolution.
Shucks. And I so wanted a long tail to swat the flies away while I'm fishing (they drive me nuts).
Common designer, common materials, common processes, common utility. Man creates lots of different stuff, but no matter how different in design or function there is always some commonality.
What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?
NO!!!!!!!!!
Chimps are not our ancestors. They are our cousins.
There is no such thing as "more evolved". We are just as evolved as bacteria because there are just as many years between us and our common ancestor.
We are talking about the size of the brain vs. body mass.
Many?? Name a few other than Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor. Those are the only fakes I know that fooled anyone, and ironically the later was made up of two legitimate fossils. The only one that fooled the experts, mind you, was Piltdown Man.Your conclusion does require faith. Many transitional forms have been faked and swallowed by people of faith, like you.
LOL! Like you!? Please tell us about all the transitional fakes you uncovered from your couch... this will be good!The people with less faith re-checked the evidence. Like me.
As I said, we should see some of these "transitionals" still hanging around.
Why did all of those die out?
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference?
Then why are we still seeing viral bacteria get stronger and more resistant? Or do you feel this is incorrect?
I'm admittedly at a loss...is it human brains -vs- chimp brains, or is it big human brains -vs- little human brains? I'm referring to the latter; it just seems like you're stuck on the former.
Why? The fossils are proof that they did exist. That's all that evolution requires.
The leading contender is us. Evidence points to H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis going extinct due to competitition with H. sapiens. The species that went extinct after modern humans emerged were our cousins, and not our direct ancestors. Again, I don't understand why you require sister taxa to be living today in order to accept the transitional forms that are found in the fossil record.
Of course, we could also go back to our common ancestor that we share with our gorilla cousins. If we trace our lineage back to that shared ancestor, there is a fork in that tree. One of those forks leads to living chimps. Chimps are the very thing you are looking for, a living branch of the lineage that led to us from our common ancestor shared with gorillas.
Do you understand the difference between your cousins and your grandparents? Chimps are our cousins. We are not their descendants or ancestor. They are not our direct ancestor or direct descendants. We share a common ancestor, our grandparents in the analogy. Our grandparents are neither us or our cousins. In the same way, our shared ancestor was neither a human nor a chimp.
Firstly, there is no such thing as viral bacteria. Viruses and bacteria have less in common than flies and elephants.
Bacteria evolving to their environment has been happening since there were bacteria. They will continue to better adapt to the new environments that humans have created. That is how evolution works. That doesn't make them "more" evolved than a bacteria that does not infect humans. All bacteria are either adapted to their environment or adapting to a changing environment.
Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by pure chance.I always miss the start of anti-evolution threads, so I figured I'd turn the tables around. Why do you reject evolution?
Good thread. For starters: Weak faith. for instance, I don't have enough faith to believe that all the information contained in DNA came about by pure chance.
. . . . . ]
After all this time . . . after the theory of evolution has been around over 150 years . . . why does it not occur to you that pure chance is not the explanation evolutionary theory offers?
Actually it is either pure chance or a guiding force.
Hint for the quiz: natural selection plays a part.
Natural selection is a very intelligent force. It eliminates chance and proceeds directly towards a predetermined goal.
Actually it is either pure chance or a guiding force.
Natural selection is a very intelligent force. It eliminates chance and proceeds directly towards a predetermined goal.
Stuff can share a lot of commonality and not fall into a nested hierarchy.
Let's use playing cards as an example. As you are aware, they share a lot of features. Do they fall into a nested hierarchy?
First things first, we need to root the whole group with a shared characteristic. All of the cards are rectangular. That works.
Now we need to split them into two groups by a feature found in one group but not the other. Let's split them into red and black. So far so good.
Each of those groups can be split into two new groups. The black cards into spades and clubs. Red cards into hearts and diamonds. Still going along swimmingly.
Now let's split them by rank. UH OH!!!!! We have a clear violation of a nested hierarchy. Our hierarchy would require ranks to all evolve exactly alike, but independently. That doesn't work. Cards do not fall into a nested hieararchy.
Do the same for your woodshop creations. Split them into smaller and smaller groups, and show how there are no violations of a nested hierarchy. If a feature is shared by members of two different groups, then that feature must be shared by all of those two groups. See if you can do it.
No, natural selection isnt intelligent, or guided or predetermind. Its a process thats very well understood and doesnt require suparnatural elements.
I suggest that you study what the science really says on natural selection.
All science says is that natural selection directs evolution. Therefore I conclude that evolution has a predetermined direction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?