YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
About the links -- the 'links' are categorized not by test but by conjecture as to when, and possibly why (such as "migration"). Not by anything more.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does evolution have a purpose?
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Do you seriously believe 'evolutionists' are so simplistic and uneducated that they base their belief in evolution on a superficial resemblance between a couple of apes? What about all the evidence from the rest of nature -- microbes, plants and other animals? What about genetics? We all learned the evidence in high school, why would we be fooled by a man-chimp resemblance?Actually, most of them I would say (the evolutionists) went along with Darwin because of his posit that chimpanzees and gorillas kind of looked like humans, more or less. And the same with other types of beings, they resembled each other, therefore...they "evolved" from somewhere as from a common ancestor, he and they all figured. I find it very strange that with all the many fossils found, the human, chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla, etc. 'Common Ancestor' they all supposedly came from has not been found. Hmm, I wonder. But anyway -- be that as it may -- I'll leave it there for the moment. (I don't like long posts for the most part, although I was reading an older issue of National Geographic and might like to comment on it.)
What evidence would convince you that evolution is real? How much evidence do you need?
Last edited:
You're living in a fantasy world, YT. You're just making things up to suit your world-view. Facts and theories are not conjecture.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The theory is a theory. Again -- other than the FACT that one fossil resembles another (yes, that's a FACT that a fossil resembles another fossil ), it is not proof of evolution. There simply IS no proof that is verifiable and true. I'm not saying similar types (take bats, for instance) did not section off to form the different groups of bats, but fossils are not proof of evolution, and scientists that believe in the theory are happy to use fossils as a way of showing 'proof'. (Of some sort. But it's not proof. What IS proof is that when one type of pig is crossbred with another type, it produces a pig. Back again to those intermediary forms where the genetics got lost, banished.)
Do you believe in curvature of space time? The reason I ask is because as Newton pointed out, We know gravity by happenstance. In other words, taking it into this topic (evolution), we know there are elephants and genomes and dna. How they got there is not known. How gravity got here is not known. It's all guesswork.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You're saying I'm making it up. Problem with your accusation is that there's no proof of that. It's simply -- n o t t h e r e.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The links are not categorized by testing the items as to them being evolved. It's guesswork. You can say whatever you want, but that does not change the fact that the links are placed in order by conjecture.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So absurdly simplistic as to count as astounding ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. Regardless, genetics has confirmed the relationships beyond any reasonable doubt. And, no, it's not just that the genomes look like each other "more or less". Do you want links to why genetics makes the case so solid again, so you can just pretend it doesn't exist again?
This has been explained so many times to you, your wondering is baffling unless you just don't want to / dare not try to, understand.
Darwin came up with his ideas at roughly the same time as Wallace, and probably through the same observations, which took quite a lot of work actually and without the benefit of knowing about DNA, which would have made the task a lot easier. I suggest you look into how Darwin and Wallace formed their views, and why the explanation for how species came about (Natural selection) was such a wake-up call to all other explanations. He didn't publish lightly, knowing the reaction it would cause at the time, and his wife being very religious, but nevertheless he did so because he believed the theory was correct - so an honest and courageous man.Actually, most of them I would say (the evolutionists) went along with Darwin because of his posit that chimpanzees and gorillas kind of looked like humans, more or less. And the same with other types of beings, they resembled each other, therefore...they "evolved" from somewhere as from a common ancestor, he and they all figured. I find it very strange that with all the many fossils found, the human, chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla, etc. 'Common Ancestor' they all supposedly came from has not been found. Hmm, I wonder. But anyway -- be that as it may -- I'll leave it there for the moment. (I don't like long posts for the most part, although I was reading an older issue of National Geographic and might like to comment on it.)
STOP IT! with this theory vs fact nonsense, and this "proof of evolution" nonsense. This has all been explained to you a hundred times and you still either don't get it or you're presenting the same straw man you have so many times before.
Noöne's saying fossils or anything else proves evolution. Nothing proves anything, outside of mathematics.
Do you believe the Earth revolves around the sun, or that germs cause disease? If so why? There's less evidence supporting these theories than there is evolution.
Once again, no amount of evidence and reason.
Riding the ark of ignorance on waves of denial.
What's the plan?
Only the one true.
Of course it's yours.
While creationism can't even hold up to trial.
gnostic
The Lost One
Facts are in the evidence, YoursTrue.
The theory explained the facts, hence it make the theory “factual”.
And proofs are not evidence, YoursTrue.
When are you going to learn that proof don’t verify anything.
Proofs are logical models, often expressed as mathematical equations. Equations contained combination of numbers, variables, constants and coefficients.
Equations (proofs) don’t verify theory or hypothesis; EVIDENCE do.
This stubborn ignorance - not being able to learn from your mistakes - is an ugly trait. Not learning what proof is, and having someone explaining to you, time and time, again, ís unhealthy.
You have been here for about 5 years now. It make you look uneducated, and unwilling to learn that proof don’t matter more than evidence.
gnostic
The Lost One
As I keep telling you, PROOFS are mathematical statements, often expressed as EQUATIONS, as metrics, constants or variables. Proofs, mathematical equations are method of modeling the world or the physical phenomena, and these are found in hypothesis or theory as part of explanation or part of prediction.
The explanations, predictions and equations (proofs) are together, what needed to be tested. And the only ways to test these (explanations/predictions/equations) are through the OBSERVATIONS of physical EVIDENCE.
The “observations” should be able to provide information, like quantities, measurements, visual or audio recording of the phenomena (evidence), etc. These information from the observations of the evidence, are called DATA.
It is these EVIDENCE & DATA that verify or refute hypothesis or theory, not proofs (equations).
As I have said in my last reply to you, proofs don’t verify or refute anything, because proofs (eg equations, constants, etc) are parts of the explanations or parts of the predictions in a hypothesis or theory.
In biology, are the following evidence for evolution:
- Fossils are the physical evidence, not proofs.
- Genetic information, like RNA & DNA, are the physical evidence, not proofs.
- Comparisons of species and subspecies, like their physical traits, or the morphology of their built, forms or structures, these are all physical evidence, not proofs.
All the evidence obtained and collected since Darwin’s time, have verified the Natural Selection in the theory of Evolution. And since that time, the theory have been refined/modified/updated and expanded.
Evolution is even a more robust and more numerously tested theory than theory of gravity, theory of quantum mechanics or theory of electromagnetism.
Astrophile
Active Member
Darwin never mentioned chimpanzees or gorillas in The Origin of Species. It was Linnaeus (1758) who classified us among the Primates, and T.H. Huxley, in Zoological Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863), who demonstrated our close similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas.
You would expect someone claiming to understand evolution so well that they can reject it would know that.
gnostic
The Lost One
A lot of biologists that presented things that Darwin didn’t say in On Origin Of Species (1859).
With On Origin, Darwin never brought up the “Survival of the fittest”, and it was the one that most people have mistakenly attributed to Darwin. The word was coined by Herbert Spencer in Principles Of Biology (1864).
As to chimpanzees and humans, you are right, about Linnaeus and Huxley.
It was also mentioned by Bishop Samuel Wilberforce during heated debate at Oxford in 1860, where Wilberforce made a jab at Darwin (who was even present for debate) that Darwin’s grandparents were descended from gorilla or chimpanzee.
Huxley responded with something like better to have evolved from monkeys than being humans who cannot see the truth.
Like you said, it was Huxley who brought up that the relationships between man and other apes in his 1863 book.
According to biology today, most biologists accepted that humans are apes and primates, just as they accepted humans are mammals.
But biologists don’t say humans evolved from gorillas and chimpanzees, but rather there were other species that humans have common ancestry with gorillas or chimpanzees.
This ancestral species - Sahelanthropus tchadensis - could be the one before the split chimpanzee-human divergence. The Sahelanthropus have been dated to about 7 million years ago.
Other things that Huxley proposed correctly and accepted by biologists and paleontologists is that birds evolved from specific species of dinosaurs.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ok. Thanks. So? Does similarity mean we have a Common Ancestor among the apes?
Does your believing in a literal Genesis mean that we do not?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
apparently Darwin did not directly say that humans were developed (evolved) from a common ancestor (as still unfound) of humans and possibly bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas, etc. but suggested that birds, fishes, mammals and reptiles have related lives. Thus in turn would you say that means all complex life forms evolved from simpler ones through various genetic mutations? Including the so called family of apes? Just wondering because that is certainly related to Darwinian thought of common ancestry.
All the evidence amassed so far indicates that living things on this planet share a common ancestry. The Bible could be interpreted to indicate this as well in some ways.