-
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!
Evolution Observed
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yep, a totally different standard needs to be applied to bacteria. And that reminds me of the rather foolish question asked so often about why bacteria are still bacteria. They are highly evolved, just "differently evolved" than we are. And moving of the goalposts will be a constant problem in these debates. Sometimes people try to move them all the way to abiogenesis, at that point I remind the person that they have admitted that evolution itself is a fact by moving the posts that far.
No polka really bad polka actually, but hey everyone loves their lederhosen. I have zero idea why. I mean they are embarrassingly odd. And the damn according music it sucks, unless it's Steve n the seagulls playing thunderstruck but that's parody!!! Objektivismus is a joke especially in German. I think they proved already how absurd that is thank you very much.Must admit, I'm not sure if it is me but you do write in riddles.
Like it or not scientists work by first observing something then trying to explain why it happens.
I think it is you who are trying to cause confusion.
Again you talk in gibberish. How do you know what they believed in pre-literate times? They couldn't write, so couldn't record what they experience or believed??
The whole sentence (s) just doesn't make any sense.
Darwin is a person who died 130 years ago. Why is he a cultural problem? What are you talking about?
A dogs is what?
Is English your second language?
Southern Baptist? is that a rock band?
Last edited:
That's probably true for the Malaysians as well:
Orangutan - Origin late 17th century: from Malay orang utan ‘forest person.’
It's not that simple, but I was once captivated by the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" catchphrase as an evolutionary marker. While that has been superseded by the complexity of real embryonic development, However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures.[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
Altfish
Veteran Member
I was just about to say that.
Objektivimus or objectivism in German. Seems nonsensical.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
Thank you, that was helpful.
Any example of close relations among mammals the resulted different species Equidae, and the clear genetic relationship of Horses, Zebras, and donkeys. Zebras even evolved sub species in different environments.
The modern key to evolution is genetics, and tracing evolution through the mutation of DNA, and what is called genetic drift, when populations adapt to adapt to different and changing environments.
The modern key to evolution is genetics, and tracing evolution through the mutation of DNA, and what is called genetic drift, when populations adapt to adapt to different and changing environments.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Something we can agree on at last
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Here is a great article that explains 30 different ways that macro evolution has been evidenced.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
gnostic
The Lost One
You are right.
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace didn’t just make up the explanations first, then the came the evidences later.
It is the other way around.
They both travelled extensively, around the world, observing wildlife, and came home, trying to understand the diversity of animals (and plants).
It became apparent to both men that the environments at different geographical locations can have have effect on these animals. Hence, Natural Selection.
What is apparent, is that creationists, don’t understand speciation. They think evolution is where a cat can give birth to dog, or other such absurd nonsenses.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Finches automatically tend to separate themselves into different groups, at least that is the observation. Dogs not so much.
But dogs are separated into different groups by humans, giving us even clearer group distinctions and clear evidence of those dogs evolving.
I don't think that is what people have difficulty with.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The reality, imo, is that they shouldn't have any difficulty with the basic premise of the ToE, namely that life evolves over time. Surveys of both Jewish and Christian theologians indicate that they largely don't have a problem with this as long as it is understood that all life is ultimately from God.
Usually it doesn't include man in that picture. I think the percentages would change if that were added. (Just an opinion)
Question: Is evolution suppose to be like a tree, the more time passes, more branches are made and the more one should see changes because quantities increase giving a greater percentage of potential change?
This is one small case in a mountain of evidence for evolution. What those that have difficulty with the science of evolution is religious presuppositions that lead them to reject evolution regardless of the evidence.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But we well know that humans have also evolved and, as a matter of fact, we still are. The surveys of theologians I've seen do not remove humans from their consideration.
When I first started teaching anthro in the late 1960's, the oldest humans we had were dated at about 1 & 1/2 million years ago, but now we have human fossils that date back to 4 & 1/2 million years ago with a fairly recent find in Chad that's 6 million years old. However, with the Chad find, it has so many ape and human characteristics that, at least the last that I've read, they still are not willing to classify it as either one or the other, which is what we would expect to see as we get closer to that likely connection.
Here's a link to actually a half-way decent article on this as found at Wiki, and I think you'll see that your personal ancestry is much more ape-like than human
: Human evolution - WikipediaExactly, but the tree tends to be rather irregular with many dead branches (extinct forms). Evolution is not an A gradually evolves to B thingy, but more of a hodge-podge of A, some of which evolves on, some not, and only some may form new species B, maybe C, maybe more, maybe none. IOW, it's not a "pretty" tree.