- Sebastian Helenius
- Lahti
- Finland
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Human Evolution
Evolution is one of the most tested theories present in the scientific community today. The fact is that it appears to be hardening into substance - more fact that theory.
Modern evolutionary theory discusses two principle pathways of evolution - punctuated vs. gradualism.
So who are we, the humans?
Our rate evolution is beyond understanding in comparison to pretty much all other species.
Or is it?
I believe that yes it is and that there lies something bizarre hidden in the facts of our evolution.
I short summary of what we have accomplished as since homo sapiens in 50,000 years -
traveled the globe.
settled across the globe.
brutally slaughtered all our relatives or absorbed all other directly related species into our gene pool (theories differ).
developed a diverse network of cultures.
built skyscrapers.
built spaceships.
Now, i hate to sound pretentious but are we not one fantastically competent species? Give yourselves a pat on the back! No, don't. really.
Anyway, the question is how have we achieved this feat of evolution? Other animals require millions of years before they are able to fly.
I would like to hear some opinion.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Mahmoud Marei
I need you to guide me to those theories. I cannot understand something about human evolution, which is where are the intermediate stages between the chimpanzee, the Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Why can we not still find intermediate stages living till today? They are supposed to be more adapted than the great apes and more intelligent than them and that's why they evolved from great apes, so why are the great apes present while hominids not?
Stewart Gault 30+
Sebastian Helenius
Peter Law 30+
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.". (Wiki)
:-)
Sebastian Helenius
Be careful in your selection of words when discussing theory.
It is not appropriate to discuss a theory as being fact.
The fact that theory is based on fact does not make theory fact.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
How many examples do you need. Just one would prove that at least one species evolved and was not created as a kind.
Do we need to know what Bob the Neanderthal was doing on Thursday 50,001 BCE
I would question evolution if we found fossil rabbits in the same layers as dinosaurs because they were not supposed to live at the same time.
Also from your creationist perspective do you require every single existing and extinct species to be explained. Do you know which ones died in the flood and which just went extinct. Do you have a detailed mechanism such as natural selection and genes/DNA that you admit works for micro evolution to explain how all species came into existence or are you still at the god spoke and it happened lack of detail. IE Magic.
I suspect double standards.
Actually would you accept anything at face value that contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Theories have to explain and fit the facts or they get thrown out.
You can say a theory correctly explains or predicts the facts, some with enough confidence to say as far as we know a theory is true and correct.
Peter Law 30+
I agree that scientific theory does not equate to fact. Perhaps someone should inform Mr. Dawkins & Co. to stop broadcasting to the general public that evolution is fact.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
What makes it so close to fact is the same reason gravity is accepted. It explains LOTS, it makes predictions which have been verified. It is testable and has been shown to work every time.
Now if you claim, as you do, that there are still parts to be worked out in the theory, such as the addition of information, well you're quite right that does need to be worked out, and it will be. But because we don't currently know how to add information doesn't mean it can't be done and has been done. Gravity can't explain super clusters or dark energy and germ theory can't explain why being happy helps you to recover from disease but they still work as science why? Because they pass all the tests of being science.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
When we have an understanding of the mechanism, see adaption happening on a human time scale etc
Peter Law 30+
There are loads of fossils out of place. Even though the layers are normally identified by the fossils found within them. They are normally identified as 'reworked', or 'washed down', depending on whether they are found too high, or too low. The theory being that the fossils moved somehow.
We also find fossils that are identical to living creatures. Presumably there is no reason why these creatures could not have left fossils in all the upper layers, but didn't. So the lack of fossils does not equate to extinction, as previously thought re dinosaurs etc.
So if creatures exist, but leave no fossils in some layers, how can we really know when they really appeared in the first place. This is a mish-mash, & not as tidy as depicted in the books.
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Some populations have changed a lot others haven't in the last X millions years. But you think radiometric dating is always wrong
Not all bacteria evolved into more complex forms. Some fish populations stayed in the oceans.
Peter Law 30+
The point I am making is that the presence of a fossil in the strata tells us it was alive when that strata was formed; but, conversely the absence of a fossil in the strata does not tell us that the creature was not around at that time. I am using the evolutionary assumption of gradual deposition over millions of years. I grant that just for the sake of argument.
Living fossils like the Ceolocanth (?) etc., creatures present in early layers, absent in later layers, but alive & kicking today, prove that the absence of any fossil in any layer tells us absolutely nothing about that fossils state of health at that time. So we really don't know if the dinosaurs died out 65m years ago or not, maybe they just didn't fossilise anywhere since then.
So even given the millions of years scenario, I don't see how the evolution theory can be gleaned from the ' geological column '.
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If I say we have never found a modern mammal alongside dinosaurs you can say that doesn't mean they did not exist at the time, just we haven't found one. Fair enough.
Yet you will believe a book when it says a donkey spoke, or a man walked on water or was born of a virgin.
Not all bacteria has evolved into multicelluar life. Bacteria are "living fossils". Some populations have found a niche and not changed much. Not all fish have evolved into reptiles.
There is an 11,700 year old tree in Africa.
And you don't accept any radiometric dating.
And you don't accept the time it takes for starlight to reach us.
And you don't accept any evidence of redundant genes or remnants or crappy "design"
And you don't accept the way DNA/genes map out across the species
And you don't think the 98% similar DNA and physiology and behaviour might indicate some sort of relationship.
Its tough to argue with your all powerful god made it that way and ignoring anything that doesn't agree with the bible.
Peter Law 30+
I conceded millions of years.
I conceded starlight.
Have radiometric dating.
Have your old tree.
Have crappy design.
I never even mentioned the bible.
It still doesn't work; you are always left slagging off the bible. In light of what we have being talking about, ie fossils & the column, what evidence is there that evolution has occurred ?
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
That what you try to explain by design efficiency is much more likely to be a shared ancestry.
That there is a mechanism for adaptation via natural selection/DNA.
That we see adaptation happen in front of our eyes. That small changes over time could reasonably lead to divergence such that many generations later gradually a new species evolved in some populations. You don't give birth to a new species, You just may not be able to breed with other populations that were once the same species or with your ancestors if you go back enough, if you have adapted.
That if you understand it correctly it makes sense if you have an open mind.
The high likelihood of what appear to transitional species actually being transitional species.
The remnants of previous forms, no longer used. The really crappy design that is better explained by evolution.
That humans have a melded chomosome that was predicted given we have one pair less other primates.
We are so obviously brainy primates, animals, with the same life cycle, sexual reproduction and development with similarities across other vertibraes etc etc etc
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Matthieu Miossec 100+