The elephant in the room is why man "evolved" to where we are today.

[Richard.20.12]

> And there is another question that someone could ask. And that's, why would people lose big muscles at all? Couldn't we grow a big brain and still keep giant muscles like a chimpanzee?

That's my whole point! The fact that we LOST those enormous survival advantages is what makes evolution so absurd. Because it doesn't follow science or logic. You don't toss aside things you use every day and strength, when you don't have machinery around is kind of useful. Surviving cold with body hair is also rather useful. Otherwise a lot of people would die off with every cold spat. And speed. And most of all reproductive ability. That's the huge elephant in the room that evolutionists always ignore.

> And the answer is that it's an energy based trade-off. Having a big brain consumes a lot of energy. And so our survival has come down to an economic choice of directing energy to our intellect, or directing energy to our biceps. And our intellect is vastly more beneficial to our survival, so that's where our energy has gone.

And here I thought I was making progres.....
If you were living back then you'd want strength and speed and resilience to the elements above any brain improvement because evolution claims brain improvement takes a long time. Meanwhile the elements wipes out all people with cold spells.

> This, our muscles shrink as energy is directed to our mind, and our survival rate increases in accordance with survival of the fittest.

As if our brains couldn't develop without our muscles shrinking. Evolution has never suggested that. The human race would be wiped out way before our brains could "catch up".

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm sorry if you're not understanding either the foundational premise of evolution or my attempts at explaining its irrationality and lack of logic.
But it all boils down to change for survival with no anticipation of future technological triumphs. And you don't improve your survival in one area and let go of needed things in another. But you seem not to understand that part. So we're at an impasse. No worries if you're a believer. Jesus is the priority. Everything else is secondary.

Survival of the fittest has to do with overall fitness and survivability of a species, so yes you Do always actually let go of other things when you gain in a particular area.

When a fish species evolves to walk on land, it loses its ability to effectively swim, but it gains a greater success of survivability in its ventures on land, this is how it always works.

There are always trade-offs in evolution, but the key is the overall success of the species, and so mankind trades off muscle, for brain power that can make weapons that perform better than muscle. Using a brain to create a bow and arrow provides greater success than hunting with bare hands. Therefore, the species that develops a larger brain and sacrifices muscle, has a greater success and survivability, thus survival of the fittest.

 

[Job 33:6]

> And there is another question that someone could ask. And that's, why would people lose big muscles at all? Couldn't we grow a big brain and still keep giant muscles like a chimpanzee?

That's my whole point! The fact that we LOST those enormous survival advantages is what makes evolution so absurd. Because it doesn't follow science or logic. You don't toss aside things you use every day and strength, when you don't have machinery around is kind of useful. Surviving cold with body hair is also rather useful. Otherwise a lot of people would die off with every cold spat. And speed. And most of all reproductive ability. That's the huge elephant in the room that evolutionists always ignore.

> And the answer is that it's an energy based trade-off. Having a big brain consumes a lot of energy. And so our survival has come down to an economic choice of directing energy to our intellect, or directing energy to our biceps. And our intellect is vastly more beneficial to our survival, so that's where our energy has gone.

And here I thought I was making progres.....
If you were living back then you'd want strength and speed and resilience to the elements above any brain improvement because evolution claims brain improvement takes a long time. Meanwhile the elements wipes out all people with cold spells.

> This, our muscles shrink as energy is directed to our mind, and our survival rate increases in accordance with survival of the fittest.

As if our brains couldn't develop without our muscles shrinking. Evolution has never suggested that. The human race would be wiped out way before our brains could "catch up".

You said that you would want strength and resilience over brain improvements, but that's not true, because those brain improvements are what allowed people to develop tools that allow them greater success. For example, early mankind developed spears and tools for cutting and arrows, and bows.

And these tools gave people, early people a survival advantage. And so there's no question that it is better for their success to forego muscle for the sake of gaining brain power for tools.

Another example would be human language, there is no question that a intellectual development that allows people to communicate with language, would be more valuable than having big muscles. Nobody could ever argue that they would live longer if they just had giant muscles but couldn't speak human language. Obviously someone who speaks language and is able to communicate with a tribe, will be grossly more successful than an individual who has giant muscles but can't communicate.

There's just no way anyone could rationally argue that having muscles are better than having brains when it comes to success. Nobody can rationally argue this.

 

[Richard.20.12]

> But we haven't gotten weaker (we have Spears and guns), slower (we have cars and planes), sensitive to elements (we have shelters and houses) and reproduce (we have childcare and doctors).

We didn't have those things back then. Also strength is used for a multitude of things besides fighting off predators. The point of evolution is we keep what aids our survival and adapt into other things that aid our survival. We don't backtrack. That makes no sense.

> Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that morphology won't change. If a fish evolves to walk on land, it's true that the fish loses its ability to swim well. But the overall fitness has increased none the less. Fitness is a value based on success in an environment. So it doesn't matter if a chimpanzee could beat us in an arm wrestling match. Because at the end of the day, an arm wrestling match isn't a life or death matter.

That's another problem I didn't mention before. Why bother evolving if survival is just fine at the bacteria stage? We didn't NEED to evolve to survive. Bacteria survival rather well. Much better than we do. That breaks the whole precept of evolution right from the start. If a fish is doing fine in the water they will stay in the water. If they do better on land then they won't stay in the water. You "evolve" to what is better. Losing strength/speed/resistance to cold/reproductive abilities is not better.

No we don't arm wrestle to survive. But in a fight to the death an ape will crush any human in an instant. That's not very good for survival. So the last thing any man back then would want is to lose strength. Think of all the physical tasks that are needed living in a primitive environment. Strength is the #1 survival trait. And speed.

> So simply saying that our muscles are smaller contradicts survival of the fittest is simply a misunderstanding of what survival of the fitness is. Because it's quite obvious that our survival probability, health, and wellbeing are vastly greater than any chimpanzee.

Actually not at all. Put a human and chimp in the wild and the chimp will fare much better. We're pathetic compared to almost all animals. Maybe we're better than the sloth. Barely. We're weak, slow, sensitive to temperature and reproduce very slowly. But we were vastly better before apparently. Makes no sense from a survival/evolutionary point of view.

> To put it quite simply, having big muscles just doesn't matter when you have a big brain.

A big brain doesn't help you when a big ape is crushing your head. We didn't have weapons back then and any weapons we could have devised would have been no match for apes or tigers or lions or a host of predators. We simply wouldn't have survived without a big brain. Except evolution claims we didn't have one back then. More contradictions.

> Because a big brain makes us more fit for survival. We could lose our arms all together, use our brain to make robotic arms and use robot arms to outlive chimpanzees and we would still be a more successful species.

We're talking about millions of years ago and you're talking about robotics. Remember a big brain takes a long time to evolve according to evolution.

> Or ask yourself this. If you were born with only 1 arm, do you think your odds of survival would still be better than a chimpanzee? The simple answer is yes, because we can use our brain to construct a prosthetic and you could go on to win the Olympics and could still live and have children and grow old etc. So even if you literally only had 1 arm, you would still be more fit than a chimpanzee. And that's what survival of the fittest boils down to survival.

Again you are assuming a big brain millions of years ago. That's not the case according to evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

> But we haven't gotten weaker (we have Spears and guns), slower (we have cars and planes), sensitive to elements (we have shelters and houses) and reproduce (we have childcare and doctors).

We didn't have those things back then. Also strength is used for a multitude of things besides fighting off predators. The point of evolution is we keep what aids our survival and adapt into other things that aid our survival. We don't backtrack. That makes no sense.

> Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that morphology won't change. If a fish evolves to walk on land, it's true that the fish loses its ability to swim well. But the overall fitness has increased none the less. Fitness is a value based on success in an environment. So it doesn't matter if a chimpanzee could beat us in an arm wrestling match. Because at the end of the day, an arm wrestling match isn't a life or death matter.

That's another problem I didn't mention before. Why bother evolving if survival is just fine at the bacteria stage? We didn't NEED to evolve to survive. Bacteria survival rather well. Much better than we do. That breaks the whole precept of evolution right from the start. If a fish is doing fine in the water they will stay in the water. If they do better on land then they won't stay in the water. You "evolve" to what is better. Losing strength/speed/resistance to cold/reproductive abilities is not better.

No we don't arm wrestle to survive. But in a fight to the death an ape will crush any human in an instant. That's not very good for survival. So the last thing any man back then would want is to lose strength. Think of all the physical tasks that are needed living in a primitive environment. Strength is the #1 survival trait. And speed.

> So simply saying that our muscles are smaller contradicts survival of the fittest is simply a misunderstanding of what survival of the fitness is. Because it's quite obvious that our survival probability, health, and wellbeing are vastly greater than any chimpanzee.

Actually not at all. Put a human and chimp in the wild and the chimp will fare much better. We're pathetic compared to almost all animals. Maybe we're better than the sloth. Barely. We're weak, slow, sensitive to temperature and reproduce very slowly. But we were vastly better before apparently. Makes no sense from a survival/evolutionary point of view.

> To put it quite simply, having big muscles just doesn't matter when you have a big brain.

A big brain doesn't help you when a big ape is crushing your head. We didn't have weapons back then and any weapons we could have devised would have been no match for apes or tigers or lions or a host of predators. We simply wouldn't have survived without a big brain. Except evolution claims we didn't have one back then. More contradictions.

> Because a big brain makes us more fit for survival. We could lose our arms all together, use our brain to make robotic arms and use robot arms to outlive chimpanzees and we would still be a more successful species.

We're talking about millions of years ago and you're talking about robotics. Remember a big brain takes a long time to evolve according to evolution.

> Or ask yourself this. If you were born with only 1 arm, do you think your odds of survival would still be better than a chimpanzee? The simple answer is yes, because we can use our brain to construct a prosthetic and you could go on to win the Olympics and could still live and have children and grow old etc. So even if you literally only had 1 arm, you would still be more fit than a chimpanzee. And that's what survival of the fittest boils down to survival.

Again you are assuming a big brain millions of years ago. That's not the case according to evolution.

Yes, we did have big brains millions of years ago. I'm not assuming anything because it's in the fossil record. Earliest hominid stone tools date back 3.3 million years ago. And wooden tools would have been around even earlier. Things like personal sentience or linguistic development or the ability to interpret and to recognize facial expressions would have evolved even before then. A chimpanzee can recognize it's reflection in water or in a mirror while a gorilla cannot. So this too could have played a role in our separation with other apes through time. Today we make robot arms, but millions of years ago it would have been something more simple, maybe a cave painting, maybe a sharpened stick, maybe just recognizing a smile or properly identifying the color of a fruit.

I think it's also worth understanding that it's a gradation too, we don't just wake up in the morning and our muscle is completely gone. Rather the changes are in microscopic increments. And so we could still win in an arm wrestling match against some apes while having a slight intellectual advantage as well. And it isn't until we develop tools and develop language and other significantly beneficial intellectual traits, that our muscles really then significantly decrease in size.

Also, we were walking on two legs so apes really wouldn't even be able to catch us if we ran anyway. Apes are good with short sprints, but put them in any sort of race over a few hundred feet and they run out of energy (those big muscles take a lot of energy to move). Meanwhile people can jog for hours on end (which also helps with hunting things like zebras or antelopes btw).

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, we did have big brains millions of years ago. I'm not assuming anything because it's in the fossil record.

Every evolutionary step requires a back step in some other fashion. A fish cannot evolve to take advantage of terrestrial benefits without backstabbing in its ability to swim. A bird cannot evolve to take advantage of benefits of the sky without backstabbing in their ability to walk on land.

Every development and evolution requires a sacrifice of another trait that is less beneficial at the time of change. This is just the way that it works.

Right now, you're basically trying to argue that evolution doesn't make sense because if fish evolved to walk on land, they would lose the ability to swim well. And if fish lose the ability to swim well, then somehow that logically contradicts evolution.

Well I'm explaining to you that this is a misunderstanding of evolution. Because the fish species that evolved to walk on land, they gained a greater benefit in the successes on land than they did swimming in water.

A trade-off was required, but the overall success of the species increased. And it's exactly the same thing with hominids. We sacrificed muscle, but we gained so much more with our brains. It was a trade-off, but the trade-off benefited our success.

And that's how evolution works, and it's not illogical, It actually makes a lot of sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe this will help explain the theory.

Birds doesn't evolve feathers to become warm.

Evolution doesn't have a brain that makes a plan and then develops future ideas, that's just not how it works.

Birds evolves feathers, and then by default are warm and thus the feathers get fixated and stay among the species.

Another example of how the logic works.

A snail does not evolve a shell to protect itself. Snails do not evolve shells to protect themselves.

Rather, snails evolve shells, those shells by default protect the snail, and thus the snail species lives longer and the mutation for shells gets fixated.

Mankind did not evolve a big brain to make tools, but rather mankind evolved big brains, and by default then could make tools and thus the mutation for big brains was fixated and tools stayed with us.

The trade-off occurs incrementally, and thus mankind does not lose any drastic quantity of muscle until the success of the brain is already unfolding.

At the end of the day it's really just this simple, a brain very clearly gives mankind a massive survival advantage, and so no person can logically argue that muscles are better with regards to survival of the fittest than big brains.

And it's very important to understand that trade-offs of morphology occur for the sake of energy efficiency.

There's also the concept of evolutionary development or evo devo. Our DNA is set up in a way where we have things called hox genes, And morphological development unfolds with respect to how these hox genes are organized. Success and survival with regards to change in morphology occurs with use of what is already present in hox genes. A species isn't going to radically transform its DNA for the sake of growing an arm out of its back in order to survive. But rather a species makes use of very small changes in DNA, and efficiency and trade-offs that benefits success.

The argument you're making simply stems from a misunderstanding of the theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Why bother evolving if survival is just fine at the bacteria stage"

There's a thing called genetic drift that occurs, mutations occur continuously in every living thing. Evolution can slow down to a crawl, or it could speed up and could unfold rapidly. But overall, variation in genetics and variation in DNA is the default. A photon from the sun could hit my DNA right now and could change it. Change is the natural default based on the way God has created things. Stasis is not the default.

And not only that, but I'm going to go a step further with this one because this is A great topic. Imagine if there is a species of bacteria that is successful during an ice age, but then the planet changes temperature. Now all of a sudden, the bacteria is no longer as successful as it once was.

I'm a geologist and one thing that is very valuable to understand in the history of the earth is that it is intimately tied with evolution of life.

The dinosaurs were incredibly successful for some 200 to 350 million years. But what caused them to change if they were so successful? Well an asteroid hit the planet. And therefore change became the better trait than stasis.

Change allows for success against an ever-changing planet. And that's one of the key reasons why things actually should change if things want to survive.

And with that, I usually attribute this as a brilliance of God's methods in creating evolution. Because God created a system that could capitalize against any change the universe had in store for it. Because when the universe changes, through evolution we can change too. When coronavirus shows up, that is a change to our lives, but we can change too and we can overcome the greatest of changes that the universe has for us.

A woolly mammoth has thick fur and is better suited for an ice age, but when the ice age ended and woolly mammoths went extinct, African elephants with big floppy ears for fanning and cooling their bodies, reigned supreme. The planet is immensely old, each period of time different than the last. And with that, life too has been different. Each period of life different and suited.

Change is successful and change is good.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll leave you with one more statement that I think may help move the conversation forward.

Birds don't predict that wings would help them survive, then evolve wings and then survive better.

That isn't how the process logically works.

But rather, birds evolve things like feathers, maybe for warmth, then they can fly and so they do, and thus the feathers become beneficial and fixated and then birds fly.

Evolution doesn't predict flight before flight evolves, rather the morphological traits that allow for flight evolves and then logically later becomes fixated when birds benefit from flight.

Birds did not evolve feathers in a prediction that the feathers would allow them to fly, rather birds evolved feathers, perhaps it benefited them by keeping them warm, Then later flight became an option for them because they had feathers and thus they flew.

The morphological change logically comes prior to the fixation and success that the change grants. The big brain and smaller muscle change comes first, if it doesn't work then the animal dies, but if it does work then the animal succeeds and lives. Fish didn't evolve legs in anticipation that they would walk on land, rather they evolved developed wristbones in their fins (love finned fish), Then they were able to walk on land and thus they did and it was successful for them and so fish then became land fairing.

Regarding lungs, fish didn't evolve lungs in anticipation of walking on land and breathing air, but rather fish already breathed the air in lungs that developed from fish bladders before terrestrial land walking even became an option. Many fish today for example breathe air and have strange forms of lungs. And so fish capitalize on features that are already present so that when they walk on land, they can already breathe air and so they don't have to preemptively plan out that evolution. Rather the features pre-exist the benefits.

And so you might ask as you did above, how does a benefit arrive before a species can make use of it? And the answer is that the benefits arrive via mutation. Change is the default. The morphological beneficial traits pre-exist the success that they grant.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Why bother evolving if survival is just fine at the bacteria stage"

I commented on this in post 28 but I just wanted to add more to this. Another concept that is worth understanding is the concept of ring speciation. Things like geographic features or topographic features and varying climate can influence the direction and formation of new species. So for example, if you have a mountain range, one side of the mountain range may receive lots of rain and runoff while the other side may be dry. So a family or species that populates around that mountain will then end up evolving in different ways to meet different climate demands.

And if the subspecies species of one side of the mountain ever reaches a point where it no longer breeds or is fertile with subspecies of the other side of the mountain, then their genetic trajectories will forever be separated and they will never be the same again and will only grow further and further apart.

And this has been observed in birds such as the greenish warbler, but also in salamanders of California.

And another concept that's worth understanding is that evolution isn't a ladder. Species don't just evolve in one direction. Climate may get cold, they may evolve to survive in cold weather. Climate may warm then they'll evolve to survive in the warm weather, then weather may get cold again and they'll go right back to where they were before, surviving in the cold. The chemistry of oceans change, climates change, the weapons and tools of predators change, the defenses of prey change, and what you end up with is a massive planet of biodiversity of innumerable lineage's with a vast array of different traits interacting with and influencing eachother in countless ways.

And so part of the reason, aside from genetic drift and natural divergence, that species don't just stay the same forever, is that the world is a complex place. One day a trait may be good, the next day it won't be. And nother is ever really truly "perfect".

Alligators have been greatly successful and have been around an incredibly long time. Though they've changed in small ways in size and shape. But imagine if the planet froze over or imagine if a predator arrives and starts hunting them. It would then be in their best interest to change. Thought with mankind generally fearing them and the planet not getting colder, we might expect them to remain the same for ages to come. Dogs on the other hand, of course they've joined us as our pets. And so of course we see the most changes coming out of them. And so a dog's DNA is now distinctly different from a wolf's DNA. And as ages go by, that difference in DNA will grow more and more and more until eventually they won't be able to interbreed and they'll become two distinct animals that may eventually not even be recognized as close relatives. Much like a dog and a cat, we don't tend to think of them as relatives, but they are. They've just been separated a lot longer than wolves and dogs. But go back 50 million years ago, and we would have trouble distinguishing one from the other.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[sfs]

I'm sorry if you're not understanding either the foundational premise of evolution or my attempts at explaining its irrationality and lack of logic.

I understand quite a bit about evolution and I have to say -- it's your attempts at identifying its irrationality that are lacking. I would suggest that you start by not assuming that every biologist on the planet is a moron.

Evolution is about survival, yes. If in the course of our evolution, our ancestors actually threw away survival advantages compared to their competitors without gaining anything in return, they would have gone extinct (as indeed many of them did). Period. If we (along with all other animals) were actually unable to compete with bacteria, say, then we all would have rapidly disappeared. So the fact that all of these animals, including us, manage to live and reproduce just fine means that your core argument is wrong. That's the key takeaway -- if your theory is contradicted by reality, then your theory is wrong.

Now the reason it's wrong is that we don't compete with bacteria, by and large. Bacteria are much better at being bacteria than we are, but we're much better at being large mammals than they are. Different organisms fill different ecological niches, require different traits to fill those niches, and can flourish alongside one another without difficulty.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except for our minds...that's a significant evolutionary step, the mind. It's intelligence that allows us to transcend all those weaknesses you mentioned. It looks like humans have evolved extraordinarily well.

According to evolution, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, but evolution can't explain why the human mind is infinitely superior to the mind of a chimp.

 

[Buzzard3]

We could lose our arms all together, use our brain to make robotic arms

If you don't have any arms, good luck making anything at all!

 

[Richard.20.12]

I understand quite a bit about evolution and I have to say -- it's your attempts at identifying its irrationality that are lacking. I would suggest that you start by not assuming that every biologist on the planet is a moron.

Evolution is about survival, yes. If in the course of our evolution, our ancestors actually threw away survival advantages compared to their competitors without gaining anything in return, they would have gone extinct (as indeed many of them did). Period. If we (along with all other animals) were actually unable to compete with bacteria, say, then we all would have rapidly disappeared. So the fact that all of these animals, including us, manage to live and reproduce just fine means that your core argument is wrong. That's the key takeaway -- if your theory is contradicted by reality, then your theory is wrong.

Now the reason it's wrong is that we don't compete with bacteria, by and large. Bacteria are much better at being bacteria than we are, but we're much better at being large mammals than they are. Different organisms fill different ecological niches, require different traits to fill those niches, and can flourish alongside one another without difficulty.

> I would suggest that you start by not assuming that every biologist on the planet is a moron.
Well that's quite challenging when the whole premise of evolution is ignored by the very people that hold it in high esteem. I've explained my points clearly on many websites/platforms and no one has ever refuted them.

> So the fact that all of these animals, including us, manage to live and reproduce just fine means that your core argument is wrong.

I really can't understand how anyone can say something so contradictory.
So we have apes and they need to evolve to survive. Say some do evolve, become us and survive well. So there shouldn't be any more apes because they didn't evolve and they needed to to survive. This is what evolutionists keep on ignoring. Its like they are OK with selective evolution. Well when survival is at stake there is nothing selective available. You either make the grade or die. But in our world it seems many have not made the grade yet have done just fine. Which is completely irrational and contradictory and illogical. I thought science was founded on logic. Apparently not in the world of evolution where we just make up the rules as we go along.

Look, bactieria reproduce better than anything so there is no reason for any life to progress beyond that stage. Because its all about survival. That's the foundation of evolution. If it WERE true there would be nothing left but the highest surviving forms of life. Yet oddly we have a whole raft of life under those higher surviving forms of life which nobody can explain, least of all evolutionists.

And the most absurd thing of all of course in this evolution fantasyland is the fact that we, with our vaulted intellectual prowess, lost so many very valuable means of survival along the way, something that would have really hurt our chances of survival. That makes ZERO sense. You don't toss away extremely valuable things. Like hair on your body that insulates. Like moving on 4 legs so you move far faster with much better agility and better control because your center of gravity is much lower to the ground. I've listed many other things but above all is reproducing 1 AT A TIME! Nothing is more absurd than that. That has to be the absolute biggest impediment of survival during times when so many lost their lives due to weather, conflict, starvation, etc.

> Now the reason it's wrong is that we don't compete with bacteria, by and large.

Except that, good sir, its not about competition. Its about survival. Apparently we came from the simplest forms of life, right? Like bacteria. So if bacteria is doing just fine there's no reason to evolve. There's no need.

Your answer, just like the others, ignores the core issue of evolution: That we evolved to survival.

What is staggering is how so many highly intelligent people can be fooled in 2022. I think its a mixture of trust and hope. They trust in "education" no matter how illogical it is and hope they won't need a Redeemer because they don't want to admit their failings and weaknesses. And refuse to submit to a higher authority due to pride. So a bunch of reasons.

Satan is one skilled individual that uses a pile of tools to get what he wants. And he apparently wants more people in Hell with him for all eternity. What I don't understand is why he seems to yearn for this. Why he's so very, very busy. How many billion does he need to keep him company and torment? More I guess. Maybe its like rich people that are never satisfied with their own wealth. "Enough" is a word some people never really grasp or enjoy.

 

[sfs]

Well that's quite challenging when the whole premise of evolution is ignored by the very people that hold it in high esteem. I've explained my points clearly on many websites/platforms and no one has ever refuted them.

Your points barely rise to the level of being wrong. I've told you why they're wrong. Just because you don't understand the refutation doesn't mean they haven't been refuted.

I really can't understand how anyone can say something so contradictory.

If you can't understand why smart people all disagree with you about a subject they know very well, consider the possibility that the flaw is with your understanding, not the people in question.

So we have apes and they need to evolve to survive.

Apes (including extinct apes) include many species in a diverse set of environments. Each faces different selection pressures and each will evolve or go extinct individually. They may or may not have to evolve if they're going to survive.

Say some do evolve, become us and survive well. So there shouldn't be any more apes because they didn't evolve and they needed to to survive.

Some evolved, became us, and survived well. Others evolved and became chimpanzees and survived well. Others evolved and became gorillas and survived well. Others evolved and became orangutans and survived well. Others went extinct. Their ancestors were apes and they're all still apes -- including us. I don't know why you think this is a killer point against evolution or where exactly your confusion lies.

But in our world it seems many have not made the grade yet have done just fine. Which is completely irrational and contradictory and illogical.

I agree that your statement is illogical, but that's because I can't see any connection between it and reality. What species has failed to 'make the grade' and has done fine anyway? What do you mean by 'make the grade'?

Look, bactieria reproduce better than anything so there is no reason for any life to progress beyond that stage. Because its all about survival.

You say that but ignore the implications (implications I've already explained to you). If evolution is all about survival and if humans are able to survive, then we are successful in evolutionary terms. Period. If you have some other objection to evolution, make it, because this one makes no sense at all.

If it WERE true there would be nothing left but the highest surviving forms of life.

Huh? All of those forms of life survive, and therefore all of them are successful according to your own statement of what matters to evolution.

And the most absurd thing of all of course in this evolution fantasyland is the fact that we, with our vaulted intellectual prowess, lost so many very valuable means of survival along the way, something that would have really hurt our chances of survival. That makes ZERO sense. You don't toss away extremely valuable things. Like hair on your body that insulates. Like moving on 4 legs so you move far faster with much better agility and better control because your center of gravity is much lower to the ground. I've listed many other things but above all is reproducing 1 AT A TIME! Nothing is more absurd than that. That has to be the absolute biggest impediment of survival during times when so many lost their lives due to weather, conflict, starvation, etc.

Do humans survive and reproduce successfully or not? If they don't, how are we here? If we do, then the set of traits we've got allow us to be successful in evolutionary terms. That you don't understand why the particular set of traits we've got turns out to work very well is a fact about you, not a fact about humans or evolution.

If you do want to learn something about biology and evolution, rather than just trying to come up with attacks on it, there are lots of interesting questions to explore here. Why might it be better for something like humans to be bipedal than 4-legged? Why might our ancestors have done better with thinner hair? But that would involve paying attention to biologists rather than mocking them.

Except that, good sir, its not about competition. Its about survival. Apparently we came from the simplest forms of life, right? Like bacteria. So if bacteria is doing just fine there's no reason to evolve. There's no need.

Evolution doesn't happen because there's a need. It just happens. If a bacterium happened to evolve into something more complex and that something was able to survive, then that descendant of bacteria will continue to live and evolve. There was no need for the bacterium to evolve in that direction or for all bacteria to evolve toward greater complexity. It could happen, so it did.

 

[BPPLEE]

Except for our minds...that's a significant evolutionary step, the mind. It's intelligence that allows us to transcend all those weaknesses you mentioned. It looks like humans have evolved extraordinarily well.

How is this argument supposed to work again? I don't see it as being a refutation, but maybe I missed a key part?

No one is addressing his point about reproduction.

 

[sfs]

No one is addressing his point about reproduction.

What point about reproduction? There are multiple evolutionarily successful reproduction strategies (look up r vs k strategies), which are the subject of an extensive scientific literature. Would it not be appropriate to learn at least the most basic concepts of a scientific field before presuming you can overthrow it?

 

[BPPLEE]

What point about reproduction? There are multiple evolutionarily successful reproduction strategies (look up r vs k strategies), which are the subject of an extensive scientific literature. Would it not be appropriate to learn at least the most basic concepts of a scientific field before presuming you can overthrow it?

I didn't say I could overthrow it. It sounds to me like he has a valid point though.

 

[sfs]

I didn't say I could overthrow it.

We're talking about @Richard.20.12's point, right? He's the one who claims to be overthrowing evolution, not you. And it's his arguments that don't display any familiarity with the subject.

It sounds to me like he has a valid point though.

But it doesn't sound like a valid point to me, which is why I'm asking you to expand on what you think the valid point is.