[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[turnorburn]

H. ergaster, H. heidelbergensis might be some others. Since there isn't a lot of difference, other than the skulls, from H. erectus to H. sapiens, it's hard to see where H. erectus ends and modern humans begin.



Pick a few of those you think are most important, and we'll take a look.

How about i just pick the most important, the day Jesus made man in his image..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

I don't blame you for dodging the question. Even scientists have trouble drawing the lines in some cases.

 

[poetofparables]

Boy, I know like next to nothing about evolution.

 

[poetofparables]

Boy, I know like next to nothing about evolution.

Well I did learn evolution in school, I havent read darwins origins, I watch a fair bit on evolution on youtube, ummm, thats about it.

 

[turnorburn]

I don't blame you for dodging the question. Even scientists have trouble drawing the lines in some cases.

No trouble drawing anything, Jesus created us in his image, i don't need science to believe what my creator said..

tob

 

[Malachi]

Boy, I know like next to nothing about evolution.

That's just as well. It's not going to help you get closer to God and Christ, since it puts them out of the equation.

 

[Malachi]

This thread is for creationists to propose their summation of the Theory of Evolution, and these responses will be open to correction and clarification.

Essentially evolution teaches that the higher developed creatures have evolved from less developed creature over millions of years. Let's talk about apes and humans since evolution teaches that man has evolved from apes. But evolutions are stumped because they cannot honestly say that they have found a single creature (or remains of a creature) that would show the intermediate step between a hominid and a human.

The issue for Christians is quite simple -- believe either God created Adam supernaturally as a full grown and perfect human being or believe that somehow apes became human (which can never be proved):

As zoological knowledge developed, it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise distantly related species. The term "ape" was then used in two different senses, as shown in the 1910 Encyclopædia Britannica entry. Either "ape" was still used for a tailless humanlike primate or it became a synonym for "monkey".[7]
Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of the primatologists who developed the idea that there were "trends" in primate evolution and that the living members of the order could be arranged in a series, leading through "monkeys" and "apes" to humans. Within this tradition, "ape" refers to all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea, except humans.[3] Thus "apes" are a paraphyletic group, meaning that although all the species of apes descend from a common ancestor, the group does not include all the descendants of that ancestor, because humans are excluded.[13]
Greater and lesser[edit]
The diagram below shows the commonly accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea,[2] with the group traditionally called "apes" marked by a bracket.

Hominoidea
Hominidae
Homininae
Hominini
humans (genus Homo)
chimpanzees (genus Pan)
gorillas (genus Gorilla)
orangutans (genus Pongo)
gibbons (family Hylobatidae)
apes
The "apes" are traditionally divided further into the "lesser apes" and the "great apes":[14]

Hominoidea
Hominidae
Homininae
Hominini
humans (genus Homo)
chimpanzees (genus Pan)
gorillas (genus Gorilla)
orangutans (genus Pongo)
gibbons (family Hylobatidae)
great apes
lesser apes
In summary, there are three common uses of the term "ape": English-speaking non-biologists may not distinguish between "monkeys" and "apes", or may use "ape" for any tailless monkey or non-human hominoid, whereas English-speaking biologists commonly use the term "ape" for all non-human hominoids as shown above.
In recent years biologists have generally preferred to use only monophyletic groups in classifications;[15] that is, only groups which include all the descendants of a common ancestor.[16] The superfamily Hominoidea is one such group (or "clade"). Some then use the term "ape" to mean all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea. For example, in a 2005 book, Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans".[6] The group traditionally called "apes" by biologists is then called the "non-human apes".

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well I did learn evolution in school, I havent read darwins origins, I watch a fair bit on evolution on youtube, ummm, thats about it.

You don't have to bother with Darwin's the Origin of Species. Its quite dry and huge chunks of it are outdated due to Darwin not knowing about genetics. It would be better to pick up a modern book on biology that talks about morphology, genetics, and various selection pressures than to read TOoS.

 

[poetofparables]

You don't have to bother with Darwin's the Origin of Species. Its quite dry and huge chunks of it are outdated due to Darwin not knowing about genetics. It would be better to pick up a modern book on biology that talks about morphology, genetics, and various selection pressures than to read TOoS.

Good idea, ill do both.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Essentially evolution teaches that the higher developed creatures have evolved from less developed creature over millions of years.

Not really. The theory of Evolution is the model that explains how life becomes diverse. Lesser and More advanced isn't really a thing unless we are talking about specific structures.

Let's talk about apes and humans since evolution teaches that man has evolved from apes.

Actually Genetics shows that there was a divergence from Humans and Chimps a few million years ago and Evolution explains how this happens.

But evolutions are stumped because they cannot honestly say that they have found a single creature (or remains of a creature) that would show the intermediate step between a hominid and a human.

Humans are Hominids, just a specific species of hominids. There is no one creature that shows the specific change because it wasn't a single event. However many reserachers have found remains that show when hominids became Bipedal, when skull sizes changed, when bone structures changed, when facial features changed, etc. Its actually quite interesting.

To me, claiming that biologists haven't found the single missing link is similar to asking what event turned New York into a city. It wasn't just one event.

The issue for Christians is quite simple -- believe either God created Adam supernaturally as a full grown and perfect human being or believe that somehow apes became human (which can never be proved):

Or take another option, look at evidence that supports evolution and evaluated it for yourself and see if you accept it.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Good idea, ill do both.

 

[Malachi]

Actually Genetics shows that there was a divergence from Humans and Chimps a few million years ago and Evolution explains how this happens.

Where are the humans who came out of chimps 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. If evolution is on-going, this should be happening all over the world today, should it not? If evolution is a myth then it never happened. Check christainanswers.net for a detailed and scientific rebuttal.

 

[Barbarian]

Essentially evolution teaches that the higher developed creatures have evolved from less developed creature over millions of years. Let's talk about apes and humans since evolution teaches that man has evolved from apes. But evolutions are stumped because they cannot honestly say that they have found a single creature (or remains of a creature) that would show the intermediate step between a hominid and a human.

There are many, many of them. What do you suppose a transitional between human and a primtive ape would be? What features would you expect to see?

 

[Barbarian]

It's worth your time to read Darwin's book. There are indeed errors as in all scientific theories, but the five basic points of Darwinism remain unchallenged.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Where are the humans who came out of chimps 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. If evolution is on-going, this should be happening all over the world today, should it not?

Humans didn't evolve from Chimps, Humans and Chimps are sister groups. Its very similar to cousins. There is the mother group Hominids, chimps and Humans split due to genetic isolation. Chimps wouldn't give birth to humans for the same reason your aunt won't give birth to your sister. The lineages split off.

If evolution is a myth then it never happened. Check christainanswers.net for a detailed and scientific rebuttal.

I'd rather read the research from respected research associations. I'll go to Respect christian sites for theology, but I'll use science and research sites when learning about the theories, research, and mechanics.

Christian Answers is geared towards filtering science through biblical interpretation. I'd rather just read the research and learn about theology and then look at these sites. It helps me to see both sides of the issue.

 

[Malachi]

There are many, many of them. What do you suppose a transitional between human and a primtive ape would be? What features would you expect to see?

Here's what one could reasonably expect: that somewhere in Africa there is a chimpanzee or gorilla that can sit down with you and have a civilized conversation in basic English, and be able to read a simple book and talk about its contents. Human beings plan ahead, so such an evolved chimp should be able to tell you his plans for the next week.

If indeed (a) evolution has been going on for millions of years and (b) it is an on-going process by definition, then where are these "humanized" apes walking about on the planet today? Even robots do better, but they did not evolve. They were designed and created with some complex technology.

 

[Malachi]

It's worth your time to read Darwin's book. There are indeed errors as in all scientific theories, but the five basic points of Darwinism remain unchallenged.

As a matter of fact I have read Darwin's book, and he dodges the real issues very adroitly. Science is hard fact which can be replicated by any scientist. Evolution is pure speculation, and some hoaxes (e.g. the Piltdown Man).

 

[Milk-Drops]

Here's what one could reasonably expect: that somewhere in Africa there is a chimpanzee or gorilla that can sit down with you and have a civilized conversation in basic English, and be able to read a simple book and talk about its contents.

Nothing about the theory sugests that we could find a Chimp or gorilla that could speak english or even hold a conversation to human standards. Gorillas and Chimps aren't becomeing Humans anymore then we are becoming chimps ourselves. Its as I already mentioned, think of it as a family tree. Gorillas and chimps are our cousins with chimps being first cousins and gorillas being more like second or third cousins.

Human beings plan ahead, so such an evolved chimp should be able to tell you his plans for the next week.

Humans aren't the end goal, chimps are not becoming human. Humans have a large capability for Creativity and Planning, which is what isolated us from other hominid groups. We should not expect to find human levels of planning and creativity in other groups.

If indeed (a) evolution has been going on for millions of years and (b) it is an on-going process by definition, then where are these "humanized" apes walking about on the planet today?

When is your aunt going to give birth to your sister?

Even robots do better, but they did not evolve. They were designed and created with some complex technology.

Chimps and Gorillas also are doing their own thing. They aren't trying to become human, because actually can't. Just like your cousin can't become your biological sister.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's worth your time to read Darwin's book. There are indeed errors as in all scientific theories, but the five basic points of Darwinism remain unchallenged.

As a matter of fact I have read Darwin's book, and he dodges the real issues very adroitly.

Hmm... so which of the five points therein did he not document? Tell us about how he dodged one or more of these.

Science is hard fact which can be replicated by any scientist.

Which is why scientists overwhelmingly accept Darwin's theory. Numerous predictions that have since been verified. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Evolution is pure speculation,

Directly observed to happen.

and some hoaxes (e.g. the Piltdown Man).

The hoax was debunked by Darwinists. We don't know that a creationist is guilty, but we do know that it was contrary to evolutionary theory. The theory predicted that an early homin would be humanlike in body, but more apelike in the skull. Which as been subsequently confirmed by transitional forms. So it's unlikely a Darwinist did it.

 

[rthom7]

There are two theories of evolution, the special theory is about changes and small variations, which can be observed today...its also a part of Creation theory predictions, within kinds there should be variation up to certain boundaries.

Then there is the general theory of evolution, and this has never been observed, nor has any part of the this theory even remotely true...the predictions this theory make is false...even modern scientists who are atheists acknowledge the general theory or Neo-Darwinism theory is dead.

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1122.htm See my link for further studies....

Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) of the University of California beginning In 1930, and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, have developed a new theory of general evolution called the "hopeful monster theory" or "punctuated equilibrium" in which large changes to the DNA sequences occurred all at once suddenly. They proposed this new theory because the older one is dead, and will never work, because genetics have well and truly destroyed the general theory of evolution.

For example the very atoms and molecules of proteins have to arrange themselves at atomic levels of nano-scale structure to get new information, and nearly all such changes are neutral and natural selection will not select them....the other problem is most mutations are destroyers of DNA so too many mutations and the organism dies...today we see a massive rise in mutations in humans for example, around 4% of the human genome and most scientists now see the human race is heading for extinction due to mutations happening too rapidly....

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1120.htm The bacteria flagellum is but one example of genetic information that cannot be inherited simply by small changes...over 40 proteins, 10,000 amino acids, 40 DNA genes, and regulation proteins, the machine is just way too complex....its not rocket scientist is a person sees an old machine lying on the sea floor we know intelligent design made it...but somehow living biological motors are not given the same credit?

The real killer of evolution is the DNA code....code comes from coders, not materials....ACTG are letters of DNA code, and arranged in information sequences.... even neural networks do not write themselves new code based on their environment stimuli...code only comes from a intelligent coder....

At the physics end evolution is also dead....matter and energy are running down and wearing out....physical laws do not create, laws only describe... in fact evolutionists have to believe things came into being by nothing and using nothing....

Shalom