Reply With Quote
I think the statement "We evolved from apes" is close enough. We certainly had a common ancestor hat was "ape-like".
Perhaps I should be more clear.
The theory of evolution does not posit we evolved from apes.
Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction.
I think the statement "We evolved from apes" is close enough. We certainly had a common ancestor hat was "ape-like".
"ape-like" ? Sure.
"close enough"? Hardly.
The problem with the statement "we evolved from apes" is that it is an attempt at a strawman logical fallacy, in which someone tries to distort a theory then ridicule the distortion in order to discredit the original theory.
mouse has been given the correct information repeatedly, so mouse knows exactly what he is doing when he misstates this, IMO.
I know I am being trolled somewhat, but dont' mind correcting that incorrect statement with something more precise.
Some know I was a defender of creationism.
Yet the reality is, creationism is pseudo-science. A creationist's main problem is the types of questions he or she asks, sort of like mouse in this topic, only being serious (I have realized that mouse is an extremely effective troll). He wishes the science to prove, or disprove, things which can never be proven or disproved.
For example, we will never find more than a handful of "links" because of the nature of the ecosystem - living things decompose and become once again, a part of the system. Especially over many millions of years.
I think the most important evidence actually comes from the stars - we can tell, without a hint of doubt, the universe is extremely old. When evolution was first conceptualized, we didn't know (without a shred of doubt) that the universe was so old. Yet as the facts have materialized in other fields, with unyielding accuracy have they correlated the evolutionary paradigm.
Eventually, I think we will find that other life exists in the galaxy, and elsewhere. Intelligent life? That is much more far fetched and open to speculation. We occupy such a small period of time on the grand scale, that it is likely any alien civilizations existed long ago and are dead, or the creatures which eventually will evolve into such beings do not yet possess the mental capacity for higher learning.
I still believe in a deity (of what order or type, it is obviously completely unknown to me) FWIW. I always will - the universe is finely tuned and ordered, evolution included. I have accepted that evolution of life is part of the grand scheme of things.
Last edited by z0sa; 11-12-2010 at 03:59 PM.
huh....it only took you about 17 months to switch to the dark side
More like it took me 17 months to switch from the Dumb Side.
So your a flip flopper?
Yet the reality is, creationism is pseudo-science. A creationist's main problem is the types of questions he or she asks, sort of like mouse in this topic,
I never said I support the creationist I just don't buy into the Darwin snail to man theory.
So then why have the "science" books say the earth is 4 billion years old? If it has not being "proven" as you say, then why have the text books show it as facts?(I have realized that mouse is an extremely effective troll). He wishes the science to prove, or disprove, things which can never be proven or disproved.
You can't have it both ways you want to shove natural geographic channel down my throat and you want to post links from the discovery channel then when you run out of answers you want to say Science cant be proven?
What side of the fence are you sitting on? Either scientist think they are right and i point out the flaws, or scientist5 are wrong and they need to stop putting in the science books how the earth cooled for 2 billion years and man evolved from a fish.
you can't have it both ways just so you can try to blend in.
Your Zosa your one of my best journeyman TRolls they will never give you props. Stop tossing their salads!
Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from compe ion and the environment force changes over time. Here is a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many "living fossils". Where is the evolution?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
