Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[Aman777]

The woo is strong with this one.

Dear Paul, Adam was made the 3rd Day/Age before the plants and herbs GREW according to Gen 2:4-7. Amen? My woo is supported by God's Holy Word and you can dismiss His Truth as "woo" if you want, but it is God's Truth until you refute it. God Bless you

 

[whois]

Very interesting... do you have any specific examples of this occurring?

the fossil record is full of such examples.
entirely new organisms arising that aren't gradually changing from one to the next.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Dear Paul, Adam was made the 3rd Day/Age before the plants and herbs GREW according to Gen 2:4-7. Amen? My woo is supported by God's Holy Word and you can dismiss His Truth as "woo" if you want, but it is God's Truth until you refute it. God Bless you

Reality -- that is, the science and history you previously claimed to have, but later admitted you did not -- has already refuted it.

God's Truth needs no equivocation -- let alone second-rate equivocation.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Soooo...which skull transitioned into what skull?

That we cannot say for certain which is ancestral to which and which are merely side shows does not mean it isn't evidence for evolution, it is evidence for evolution.

It is all you can reasonably ask for fossil evidence to give you, and since we have all you can reasonably ask for fossil evidence to give you, it is unreasonable for you to dismiss it.

 

[justlookinla]

That we cannot say for certain which is ancestral to which and which are merely side shows does not mean it isn't evidence for evolution, it is evidence for evolution.

It is all you can reasonably ask for fossil evidence to give you, and since we have all you can reasonably ask for fossil evidence to give you, it is unreasonable for you to dismiss it.

Guesses and suppositions which are transitional and which are not?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Guesses and suppositions which are transitional and which are not?

They are all transitional, from earlier species to modern Homo Sapiens.

If you don't understand that now, when I have seen people explain it to you already, I have to conclude that you are being willfully ignorant.

 

[justlookinla]

They are all transitional, from earlier species to modern Homo Sapiens.

If you don't understand that now, when I have seen people explain it to you already, I have to conclude that you are being willfully ignorant.

Let me ask again. Are you claiming that the first skull transitioned into the last skull?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Guesses and suppositions which are transitional and which are not?

All are transitional in the sense that they show there were actual forms intermediate between chimps and humans in every possible degree. Some of them were probably "cousins" instead of "direct lineage" but on the other hand others have not yet been discovered. Its a good enough display to show that evolution is compatible with the fossil records, considering we cannot have every animal that ever lived in our fossils.

Human Family Tree Now a Tangled, Messy Bush

 

[ThinkForYourself]

i believe "nature" did exactly that when it published a graph of the primate fossil tree.
the position of the found fossils can lead to any conlusion you wish to make.
in other words there aren't enough fossils to come to any conclusion.
that's exactly right.

Fossils are only one piece of evidence for the TOE. But they are certainly a meaningful piece.

why wouldn't you believe "nature" when it says we only have 3.8% of the required fossils?
again correct.
the information i posted above comes from those people.
believe what?
"nature"?
i have no reason to doubt it.

Again, fossils are only one piece of evidence for the TOE. Again, they are a meaningful piece.

Do you understand that?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Let me ask again. Are you claiming that the first skull transitioned into the last skull?

I already answered that, as you know.

I must conclude that you are being willfully ignorant about what a "transitional" fossil is.

 

[justlookinla]

All are transitional in the sense that they show there were actual forms intermediate between chimps and humans in every possible degree. Some of them were probably "cousins" instead of "direct lineage" but on the other hand others have not yet been discovered. Its a good enough display to show that evolution is compatible with the fossil records, considering we cannot have every animal that ever lived in our fossils.

Human Family Tree Now a Tangled, Messy Bush

Well, this is difficult getting a straight answer. Is the image an example of the first skull transitioning into the last skull?

 

[justlookinla]

I already answered that.

Was it a yes or no?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Was it a yes or no?

No.

Do you understand that those are all considered transitional fossils, from early ancestors through to Homo Sapiens?

 

[whois]

Fossils are only one piece of evidence for the TOE. But they are certainly a meaningful piece.



Again, fossils are only one piece of evidence for the TOE. Again, they are a meaningful piece.

Do you understand that?

i understand fossils are important historical specimens.
the record however does not support gradual change.
i have the graph on my hard drive.
looking at that graph with an open mind will lead you to any conclusion you wish to make.
i don't see how they can say we came from apes or an alligator.
there's even speculation that each form had an original beginning.
this means once it's gone, it's gone, there's no "re-evolving".

what's your answer to this?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

i understand fossils are important historical specimens.
the record however does not support gradual change.
i have the graph on my hard drive.
looking at that graph with an open mind will lead you to any conclusion you wish to make.
i don't see how they can say we came from apes or an alligator.
there's even speculation that each form had an original beginning.
this means once it's gone, it's gone, there's no "re-evolving".

what's your answer to this?

1. Could you please link/post the graph.

2. Who published the graph?

3. Is this information from a peer-reviewed paper? If so, could I please have the title of the paper and the journal or ? it was published in.

4. How does the graph show we could have evolved from alligators just as easily as from apes.

Thanks.

 

[justlookinla]

No.

Do you understand that those are all considered transitional fossils, from early ancestors through to Homo Sapiens?

I asked..."Is the image an example of the first skull transitioning into the last skull?"

You answered...no, they're all considered transitional fossils.

If they're not an example of the first skull transitioning into the last skull, then they're not an example of transitional fossils.

 

[justlookinla]

1. Could you please link/post the graph.

2. Who published the graph?

3. Is this information from a peer-reviewed paper? If so, could I please have the title of the paper and the journal or ? it was published in.

4. How does the graph show we could have evolved from alligators just as easily as from apes.

Thanks.

LOL@"peer-reviewed". "Peer-reviewed apparently does little to prevent many of the errors of 'science'.

 

[bhsmte]

1. Could you please link/post the graph.

2. Who published the graph?

3. Is this information from a peer-reviewed paper? If so, could I please have the title of the paper and the journal or ? it was published in.

4. How does the graph show we could have evolved from alligators just as easily as from apes.

Thanks.

This will be interesting.

 

[whois]

1. Could you please link/post the graph.

this site doesn't support file uploads.

2. Who published the graph?

the british journal "nature"

3. Is this information from a peer-reviewed paper? If so, could I please have the title of the paper and the journal or ? it was published in.

sure.
Martin, Robert D., “Primate origins: plugging the gaps”, Nature, Vol. 363, 20 May 1993 , p 223

4. How does the graph show we could have evolved from alligators just as easily as from apes.

it means you can't draw ANY conclusions from it.

Thanks.[/quote]

 

[SnowyMacie]

I don't believe in evolution for the same reason I don't believe in gravity, it's science. Science is not a belief system, it's how the world works.