Why the theory of evolution is so important

[Dan From Smithville]

I tend to disagree, the only thing Darwin discovered was a diverse set of animals, fish and plants that in some ways had similar characteristics. He then speculated\theorized that their origins must have come from the same source.

Darwin amassed evidence in support of evolution, provided the basis of a theory explaining the evidence, and most importantly, came up with a mechanism driving the evolution he observed.

There is a vast body of evidence from numerous scientific disciplines. The existence of this body of work is denied by many creationists. I think this is largely out of ignorance, but there are other reasons that it is denied.

His thinking is linear which was the flawed point of view.

I do not understand what you mean by linear here.

This can be easily debunked by asking one very simple question:

If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys living in the trees today while we are building skyscrapers instead?

-

Seriously?

Humans evolved from an ape or ape-like ancestor that we have in common with other species of ape, including chimpanzees and bonobos.

Much further back, we share a history with monkeys.

In essence, you are claiming that in order for evolution to occur, any ancestral species must go extinct in order for the descendants to exist. The co-existence of putative derived and ancestral groups, following this logic, refutes the theory describing that existence.

This does not make any sense in light of the theory, the evidence or positions in science. There is no reason that ancestral species must go extinct when daughter species evolve. The theory does not demand, hint or imply this.

Using your logic and extending it to existing species, penguins cannot be birds, even though they share all the characteristics that define birds. Ostriches could not be birds either, since they are large and do not fly.

It is not a surprise that related species share commonalities and also have features unique to them. We only recently began creating skyscrapers and the existence of skyscrapers today does not refute our more primitive construction efforts of the past. Using that as a criteria to determine relationships leads to questions like '20,000 years ago, we did not build skyscrapers, were we then related to monkeys?'.

Species are optimized by evolution for the environments in which they exist. We have evolved a large brain and a conscious mind that allows us to do things that other species cannot or do not. This is a question of the degree of difference in our intelligence and not evidence or criteria that defines a relationship. Monkeys and apes have larger brains than most other species. They use tools. They have complex behaviors. They can learn. We just have traits that allow us to take that further. This does not mean that we are not related.

This is a very old and much refuted notion that you repeat here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and biology. I think if you look at the evidence and theory carefully, you will see how silly the idea is.

 

[james dixon]

I think if you look at the evidence and theory carefully, you will see how silly the idea is.

Just answer this one simple question--

If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys living in the trees today while we are building skyscrapers instead?


-

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just answer this one simple question--

If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys living in the trees today while we are building skyscrapers instead?


-

It is sort of a nonsense question that has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. If horses makes such good animals to ride, then why do zebras still exist?

I have never built a skyscraper. Have you? Even if you have, how does that refute the theory of evolution? How do you then explain the evidence of evolution?

Monkeys have large brains relative to other species and their size. Apes have large brains relative to other species and varying in relation to their sizes. Monkeys, apes--including humans--are intelligent. Is the zenith of intelligence a single path to the construction of skyscrapers? Why have we not always built skyscrapers? What would a monkey need to build a skyscraper for?

I made a dam once or twice in my history. Why do beavers still exist then?

I need you to explain how this question bears on the theory and the fact of evolution and how, in doing so, refutes the theory and explains the facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just answer this one simple question--

If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys living in the trees today while we are building skyscrapers instead?


-

You do know that humans evolved from an ancient ape? That species of other apes still exist. You are aware that the construction of skyscrapers is not a defining criteria for existence as a human.

We have evolved a large brain that allows us to use the associated intelligence from that brain along with changes evolved from a life in trees, including thumb and hand/eye abilities to go beyond our biological place. This does not mean that we did not evolve. The existence of relatives does not mean we are not related.

I did not have to kill off my relatives in order to live or exist as I do. I know people that build things I cannot. Why do I still exist contemporaneous to them?

 

[james dixon]

It is sort of a nonsense question that has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

Just answer the question.
-

 

[james dixon]

We have evolved a large brain that allows us to use the associated intelligence from that brain along with changes evolved from a life in trees,

Personally; I must admit that I am an evolutionist and not a creationist; if, and only if I must choose between one or the other.

Having said that, one can believe in both and still be right without any conflict.

If push came to shove, that is the category I would fall in.

Still, I like debates & debating makes the day fly by which is a whole lot better than being a bug stuck in a rug.

Dan From Smithville, I have enjoyed our back and forth but having given myself away I have lost my excuse for being here.

See you on the other side
-

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Personally; I must admit that I am an evolutionist and not a creationist; if, and only if I must choose between one or the other.

Having said that, one can believe in both and still be right without any conflict.

If push came to shove, that is the category I would fall in.

Still, I like debates & debating makes the day fly by which is a whole lot better than being a bug stuck in a rug.

Dan From Smithville, I have enjoyed our back and forth but having given myself away I have lost my excuse for being here.

See you on the other side
-

I am a Christian that accepts the theory and knowledge discovered and reported in science. I do not accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, simply because that story is in defiance of the evidence and was written by intelligent men less knowledgeable than we are today. As an allegory, it is still valuable in imparting wisdom and not being literal does nothing from destabilizing it as part of the basis of Christian theology.

I have enjoyed it as well.

In debating others that have either different views than I do or pose interesting questions, I learn. Not every question or position makes a person uncomfortable in the context of personal views, but even when they do, I learn something. Even if it is just about myself.

 

[shunyadragon]

I tend to disagree, the only thing Darwin discovered was a diverse set of animals, fish and plants that in some ways had similar characteristics. He then speculated\theorized that their origins must have come from the same source. His thinking is linear which was the flawed point of view.

This can be easily debunked by asking one very simple question:

If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys living in the trees today while we are building skyscrapers instead?

-

Actually you are misrepresenting Charles Darwin. Based upon extensive accurate observations he proposed the hypothesis (not really a theory) for evolution and he did not speculate any conclusions. He correctly presented what kind of evidence would be needed to be of predictive value to falsify his hypothesis. He opened his works up for peer review of a number of scientists of his time before he published, and expressed reasonable doubt about the conclusions of his works. His science was not flawed, and in fact he was the model of scientific methods of his time. Very few scientists of the time followed his meticulous methods and procedures. It is the vast amount of evidence, discoveries, and research since that has demonstrated the science of evolution, particularly in genetics, beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just answer the question.
-

I believe I have, but here goes another attempt.

In the context of the theory of evolution, monkeys would be optimized for their environment. As long as that environment is stable, small changes may lead to changes in geographic populations and eventually even to new species. If the changes in the environment were so large and fast that evolution could not keep up, then species faced with those conditions tend to go extinct. Monkeys do not appear to have been so challenged in their history and exist as we see them today.

Speciation could result in the mother population going extinct, but it is not an absolute condition and probably more often, new species form and live contemporaneously, even if not geographically, together. In insects, we see numerous related species living on different parts of the same plant at the same time and same location. This resource partitioning--first identified by ornithologists I believe--allows multiple species to share the same location at the same time.

If you look at the breadth of the known species of plants and animals, you will find many examples of species that are derived from and existing at the same time as other species. Differences in those species, whether it is behavior, traits, or some derived ability are not evidence against relationships established on evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Just answer this one simple question--

If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys living in the trees today while we are building skyscrapers instead?

-

If my ancestors were European, why are there still Europeans?

 

[Polymath257]

Just answer the question.
-

Species split. Then the two evolve separately.

Sheesh.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The two (2) humans you see below are living today, side by side.

One did not evolve into the other.

Both are homo sapiens.

Evolution is not what caused the two totally diverse development but rather help from an outside source; in my view of things; how about you?

The culture of the one on the right got interested in researching the world and technological progress. It pretty much ended up mobilizing its entire civilisation with that in mind: finding out how the world works and development of new technology. That's how you get to the moon in a matter of centuries.

The culture of the one on the right.... didn't do that. Instead, they continued to live like they've always did (and like our distant ancestors did): small tribes, hunting and gathering and perhaps some small scale farming.

The differene isn't biological or genetical.
The difference is cultural and as a result, technological.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I have a point. Many inventions were created or imagined by people right out of the blue.

Not exactly.....
Maybe it seems like that to you, but that's not the case mostly.

Instead, what we see in "inventions" and "new technology" is a rather very logical progression throughout the ages. When the ideas of the previous generation (or peers) give rise to new ideas, which - more often then not - are old ideas in a new jacket or with some small thing altered.

Take the iPhone, to give an easy to get example.

Apple "invented" it. We all know how it completely changed the world.
But look at it objectively.... what exactly did it invent?
Multi-touch? No, we already had that.
Smartphones? No, we already had that.
Mobile browsers? No, we already had that.
...
(it goes on like this).

In reality, Apple invented practically NOTHING in the iPhone. Literally every aspect of it, already existed and was already done before to some extent or another.

The iPhone was most definatly not invented "out of the blue".

"truelly" new inventions, are extremely difficult to find.

The idea just “came” to them as if in a dream

No.

Again, let's go back to the iPhone.
Do you know how the initial idea got started? And I kid you not....

Steve Jobs went to his R&D team and told them "make me a handheld device that allows me to easily read my mails while on the toilet".

And that's it. That's the idea that resulted in the iPhone a couple years later.
That's the request that assembled the team.

All that other stuff (everything the iPhone that isn't about an email client with internet connectivity) was added on later - in fases.

. I believe some of these ideas were implanted into our thought process from an outside source.
-

Why?

 

[metis]

Studies and observations dealing with "speciation" rather clearly indicate that mutations and genetic drift very much play a part in the evolutionary process, therefore such biological changes leading to speciation certainly are not speculative.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just answer the question.
-

He answered it. Twice.

Edit: Oops. Three times.

 

[james dixon]

Personally, I believe creationist and evolutionist are both right. One does not exclude the other

-

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally, I believe creationist and evolutionist are both right. One does not exclude the other

-

What you believe hardly matters since you continually demonstrate that you do not understand the theory of evolution. The two concepts contradict one another.

 

[Seve]

Not being content with this definition, Evols have taken a step beyond descent with modification and entered the world of Religion by teaching that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. With NO evidence these men, who have rejected God's Truth, have now taught this false assumption for more than 50 years in the Public Schools of the United States. Below is the evidence that the ToE is a willingly ignorant as documented in the Scripture.

Science teaches that we evolve from our parents, but Evolism teaches that we can magically change from animal to Human intelligence APART from the method in which we inherit everything else, and that is through the birth process. Evols speculate that long gradual periods of time and numerous positive mutations changed animals into Humans. This is the stupid assumption which cannot be supported Scientifically, and which is ruining our children today.

Scripture agrees with Science and shows that APART from the birthing process, there is NO way to inherit the unique Human intelligence which only God and Adam have. Gen 3:22 God's Holy Word also tells us HOW and WHEN prehistoric people became Humans. Gen 6:1-4

History shows that prehistoric people SUDDENLY began Farming, City Building, Math, Writing, and EVERY other Human trait, some 10k years ago in Northern Mesopotamia, the Cradle of Human Civilization on this Planet. It's because the FIRST Humans had arrived in the mountains of Ararat and walked into the valleys of Northern Mesopotamia and the rest is the History of Humanity on this Earth.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...lemap.html

 

[shunyadragon]

Not being content with this definition, Evols have taken a step beyond descent with modification and entered the world of Religion by teaching that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. With NO evidence these men, who have rejected God's Truth, have now taught this false assumption for more than 50 years in the Public Schools of the United States. Below is the evidence that the ToE is a willingly ignorant as documented in the Scripture.

Science teaches that we evolve from our parents, but Evolism teaches that we can magically change from animal to Human intelligence APART from the method in which we inherit everything else, and that is through the birth process. Evols speculate that long gradual periods of time and numerous positive mutations changed animals into Humans. This is the stupid assumption which cannot be supported Scientifically, and which is ruining our children today.

Scripture agrees with Science and shows that APART from the birthing process, there is NO way to inherit the unique Human intelligence which only God and Adam have. Gen 3:22 God's Holy Word also tells us HOW and WHEN prehistoric people became Humans. Gen 6:1-4

History shows that prehistoric people SUDDENLY began Farming, City Building, Math, Writing, and EVERY other Human trait, some 10k years ago in Northern Mesopotamia, the Cradle of Human Civilization on this Planet. It's because the FIRST Humans had arrived in the mountains of Ararat and walked into the valleys of Northern Mesopotamia and the rest is the History of Humanity on this Earth.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...lemap.html

This is the classic Fundamentalist Christian self-imposed ignorance of science, and clinging to an ancient mythology to explain the origins and evolution of life as well as the billions of years of history of our physical existence. The evidence for evolution and billions of years of history is demonstrated by science beyond any reasonable doubt, and the fundamentalist view of Creation has absolutely no basis in science nor the simple reality of the physical nature of our earth, solar system and universe as it is.

Can you provide any objective verifiable evidence grounded in science for the fundamentalist creationist view?

 

[shunyadragon]

Personally, I believe creationist and evolutionist are both right. One does not exclude the other

-

This would be true of the Baha'i view of science and creation, but not the plurality position in Christianity. Polls show that 40% to 50%+ Christians reject the science of evolution in one way or another.