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.
If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Short answer: Because apes have found a different method of survival.
[...]
A better question would be "if random mutation is true: why don't apes randomly change into other species?"
"They will, it just takes millions of years," seems to be the only Evolutionist response.
Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is a genuine attempt, at science.
The various types of apes (including us) slowly change in response to their environmental stimuli and the variation created by random mutations.
So was the selection pressure that created us: "closed off", or "open ended"?
Waiting.
No predetermined response in mind.
Don't know what you mean by these phrases, vis a vis evolution. I don't think this is standard evolutionary theory terminology.
A better question would be "if random mutation is true: why don't apes randomly change into other species?"
"They will, it just takes millions of years," seems to be the only Evolutionist response.
Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is a genuine attempt, at science.
It's more Punctuated.The term used to date (vis a vis evolution) is "Punctuated equilibrium".
My question is "was the punctuated equilibrium: more 'punctuated', or more 'equilibrium'?"
.
They have and they do.
Chimps and Bonobos are very similar species... but have clearly diverged in form and instinct from their recent common ancestor.
It's more Punctuated.
"Punctuated equilibrium" refers to a specific scenario that triggers rapid change in species.
The point is that species will mostly only vary gradually in stable environments where they are in "equilibrium". Now when the situation changes and equilibrium is punctuated that's when we get the rapid speciation.
Probably. Humans and chimps are similar enough to recognise some body language and sounds.Thanks for sharing.
I found your response helpful.
If I may ask: does a chimp call of distress, create the same autonomic response in the chimp as the bonobo? Because they are related?
If you are asking if the selection pressure that created us is still there, then I would point you to the opening post. Humans evolved over millions of years in specific circumstance. Those circumstances no longer exist.So was the selection pressure that created us: "closed off", or "open ended"?
Waiting.
No predetermined response in mind.
Hominid evolution is very interesting.If you are asking if the selection pressure that created us is still there, then I would point you to the opening post. Humans evolved over millions of years in specific circumstance. Those circumstances no longer exist.
In particular, since all the intermediates between humans and other apes have been wiped out, an ape would need to start from scratch. The first stage for hominids meant coming out of the jungle and learning to adapt in the new grasslands. Anywhere in the world where they would try that today, they would be overwhelmed by humans and other species that control that environment.
Whether there is some other path apes could use to develop minds similar to humans, I don't know. If humans were to be wiped out, is it possible in the future another species could make a similar transformation? I don't know. Evolution depends on the luck of the draw. We humans drew a good hand. Whether another species would ever get that lucky, I don't know.
But that is how long evolution takes. If we go by the evidence, that is what you find. Would you rather we made up dates?"They will, it just takes millions of years," seems to be the only Evolutionist response.
Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is a genuine attempt, at science.
That's an unjustified assumption. Existence of a creator deity, or deities, is neither axiomatic nor philosophically sufficient or necessary.
Those are all just differing formulations of the same argument.
That's nice. Does it provide any supporting evidence that can be demonstrably verified?
Well, that's demonstrably wrong. There are all sorts of mutations in humans alone that produce conditions whereby the body ends up destroying itself. There's a reason handbooks of medicine and surgery are so thick.
Some information on the evolutionary origins and genetic structure of instinctual behaviors.
Cool. Show me the cause of quantum indeterminacy then.
All it proves was that life initially had a pretty hard time get going. Although the evidence suggests that it wasn't TOO hard of a time, as like may have been around on earth as early as the Late Heavy Bombardment.
Also, we don't know how life started, but that doesn't mean we can't know or that its not worth trying to find out.
The origin and evolution of sexual reproduction up to the evolution of the male-female phenomenon
This isn't an example of irreducible complexity.
Find me a rabbit in the Cambrian, or a conifer in the Ediacaran.
James: It seems to me that all you do is read arguments FOR your position and then regurgitate them, rather than investigating yourself. I'd challenge you to undertake some reading of positions that are adversarial to your own, and then see if you can debunk them.
Understood. But that wasn't the main point of my question. You refer to the fall as an historical event.
The default position is not "God must exist until proven otherwise". The default position is "we don't know if God exists", so your assumption remains unjustified.
Yeah, no.
FYI ToE says nothing about whether or not there is pre-design, it simply explains how evolution happens.
But that is how long evolution takes. If we go by the evidence, that is what you find. Would you rather we made up dates?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the first species to have some cells specialized for more light more sensitivity than the rest of the cells in its body? More sensitive to sound?Let us disregard the term "irreducible complexity" for a moment and discuss this - do we know if the first species to have eyes and ears had them all over the body ( because the mutation is caused by some "random, environmental changes") and only those with eyes and ears at heir right location survived by Natural Selection?
It would be hard to tell when a species began to develop a concentrated area of peristalsis in its circulatory system to the degree that you could call it a "heart."Have we thought about the first moment the heart start beating in those primitive species?
The clock, because it shows evidence of intentional human manufacture--tool marks, mold lines, the use of non-natural or refined materials, etc.--from which intentional human design may be inferred. If those evidences are absent then design may be present but there is no basis for an inference. I would have no way of concluding whether the wood was designed or not.Let us take in to the context of pre-design. Let us think about a log (wood) and a clock. Which one do you think has a design and why?
That is not a basis for assuming God, or any other supernatural being. Those principles have also been shown to be tenuous, if not actually false.The default position of God exists until proven otherwise is based on our millenniums old philosophical principles like "everything begins to exist has a cause", " ad infinitum", "no object can escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent etc".
As I said last time - yeah, no.By definition, a physical object cannot develop metaphysical attribute unless acted upon by a metaphysical entity.
So why do you keep insisting that it denies pre-design?We are on agreement here. Thanks!!
Quantum mechanics says a person could be present at different places at the same time but "alibi" is still valid in judicial courts. Theory of Relativity says there is no absolute simultaneity but we know Homo Sapience arrived after Apes, correct?
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?