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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, scientists know this since they can test this concept. Learning the difference between knowledge and belief makes it easier to see why the theory of evolution is so well accepted.
Granted that the concept of evolution is a one way street, as far as it seems. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that chimps or any other species of apes are presently evolving into another species of sorts. Chimps stay chimps so far, and humans have stayed humans for quite a while now insofar as written history goes. True that bones and other artifacts come up, but present-day life forms (such as chimpanzees) seem to have stayed as chimpanzees for quite a while now. In other words, as long as history is recorded by humans, insofar as I know.
Yes, chimps stay chimps. Humans stay humans. But humans are also apes. This should not be a hard concept to understand. You are also a mammal and a vertebrate. I am pretty sure that you do not deny that. Why deny the even more obvious fact that you are an ape?
This is starting to look comical to me. Confirmation bias written all over it, in big, bold letters.Saying, in the same paragraph, that those four conditions are required for life to exist, and that they are evidence of all living creatures having the same ancestor.
Why do you say that? Odds are that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. And where does it make the claim that you say it does? You may be projecting when it comes to your claim of confirmation bias.
Evidence for evolution
Saying, in the same paragraph, that those four conditions are required for life to exist, and that they are evidence of all living creatures having the same ancestor.
Yes, and maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and pigs could fly if they really wanted to.
This is your sin. Not that of scientists. As I said you need to review the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. I see that you were not able to substantiate your false claims about confirmation bias.
However that may be, I think I understand it much better now than I did a few weeks ago. “Scientific evidence.” ROTFL! Hey, look at me everybody, I’m a science denier!
There is a vast difference in the thinking, speaking and writing ability of apes vs. humans. And what is the reason, would you say, that chimps or humans are not evolving now? Chimps supposedly have been around a much longer time than present-day humans, yet still stay chimps. Why do you think that is so?
I don’t play that game. My games are WoW, and some phone games.
Those are man's classifications. When I was in school, I was able to answer correctly according to the teaching at the time. And I had no real knowledge of the Bible so I believed everything they taught me about -- evolution. Even when the theory changed from one concept to another.
Speaking of which, why do you think chimps stay chimps and humans stay humans without continuing on the evolutionary climb (or change)? Chimps have ostensibly stayed chimps far longer than humans have been humans, haven't they?
No, I'm saying that the understanding of common ancestry explains differences as well as similarities between taxa. For example, it explains why whales and sharks have very different anatomies for swimming and breathing, even though they both occupy the same environment. Another example is the anatomical differences between birds and bats.
Agreed.
Well it's interesting to see you say that, since the paper you just vaguely criticized takes that into account (that's what they mean by "functional constraints"). Yet even with that covered, they still demonstrate that common ancestry is far and away the best explanation for the data.
“While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism ... We present a new statistical framework to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry that avoids this pitfall.
What? I never said that either had stopped evolving.
I didn't say you said either chimps or humans have stopped evolving. Is there any evidence that chimps or humans are evolving? Start with chimps, please, they're ostensibly older in species than humans, so have a longer time perhaps to evolve. Is there any evidence chimps are evolving?
Classifications have changed since we have a better understanding today. Many people do not like the fact that they are apes.