Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I know you know this. You've repeatedly heard it, you've had the links provided that show it categorically, and yet...
Here it comes again, right on schedule!
Question: do you think this makes you look more credible? Or more incredible?
You tell me. I'm all ears!
Actually I couldnot access this link, I don't know why. But I am not basing my view on chimps, I base it on what I can see and understand. I have a real family tree, real ancestors, and I see very little evolution in that; but I see some; educational evolution;evolution in the style of clothing and even hair. I see evolution in language; I see evolution in consciousness.
I see no physical evolution whateoever! Now thats just in my family, but I see it in no other family as well.
In other words , I see reserved evolution which is compartmentalizing itself into smaller catagorys. Which suggest to me the goal of much of evolution has been already reached. We have climmed to the top of its incredible mountain, and we are simply ascending down the other side of it.
I think evolution was based on Gods plans, and obviously he must not plan on humans being in civilized flesh and evolving for billions of years. I think he has already climaxed evolution and it is waning. Its on a whittle down in my view, it exist but it heads toward non existence. Once it was prevelant and rising like a dough, now we have to strain just to even find it; we need a microscope to see it, thats evidence of direction; and the direction has changed; its far more reserved than it use to be. That definitional direction;
Yet I understand its a definition thats hard for some to accept.
I have to admit that the elusiveness of demonstrable proof of currently occurring macro - evolution (to use the term) bothers me, though I find the evidence that it is where we came from compelling. We have as a general race got bigger, and there may be mental adaptations to handle more advanced technology, but those are not conclusive.
It is also valid to say that we are so well adapted to survival (having adapted the environment to us) that evolutionary traits would simply be reabsorbed (the 'stasis/saltation' or 'puncture equilibrium' theory), and evolution is replaced by trade, technology and the complex methods of religion/politics in giving a competition advantage. But that is, it comes to me, rather explaining away the apparent lack of evolution in ourselves, not to mention the other species, who seem to be going extinct rather than adapting.
While I do find the past evidence compelling and the dismissal of the stack of evidence for evolution by Creationists unreasonable and certainly not good science, I can see why Creationists sneer at fruit fly perversions in the laboratory as evidence that evolution is going on all the time.
If human evolution were a simple rising continuity, we would be greater than we are now; our bodies would be greater, our language would be greater, our technology would be greater, our consciousness would be " Lesser" than it is now. But those things have not caught up to our consciousness because they are not rising continuitys, they are reducing or red lineing. There is no criterion for evolution rising in humans, its shrinking toward a slow random reduction I think to eventual zero.
There is no rule that says that evolution proceeds from less complex to more complex or visa versa. It has no arrow of complexity. Populations evolve to adapt to their environment. That adaptation may lead to a more complex organism. Just as likely, it can lead to a less complex organism. Or the complexity may remain the say, only different from what it was before.
There is no rule that says that evolution proceeds from less complex to more complex or visa versa. It has no arrow of complexity. Populations evolve to adapt to their environment. That adaptation may lead to a more complex organism. Just as likely, it can lead to a less complex organism.
Yep. This idea that evolution must be a steady and continual ongoing progression ever higher is a misconception rather fostered by the schematic lines showing the evidence that generally that is what happened in the past, but is one of those 'fairy tales' about evolution which references are so often quoted by creationist apologists.
Evolution can remove an organ if it is not needed, which is why vestigial features are significant in evolution theory.
There is no rule that says that evolution proceeds from less complex to more complex or visa versa. It has no arrow of complexity. Populations evolve to adapt to their environment. That adaptation may lead to a more complex organism. Just as likely, it can lead to a less complex organism. Or the complexity may remain the say, only different from what it was before.
Well this is why I have termed it reserved evolution, because if we are to again see the dramatic evolution of the prehistoric past, its going to have to be at a time yet in the future and equally as dramatic; and incidently the bible describes such a dramatic evolution comming into human destiny; it just calls it being " Born Again."
What we now see is an obvious reduction in the evolution of all things, with very few exceptions, none of which are major or dramatic, as compared to primordal evolution.
I have to admit that the elusiveness of demonstrable proof of currently occurring macro - evolution (to use the term) bothers me, though I find the evidence that it is where we came from compelling. We have as a general race got bigger, and there may be mental adaptations to handle more advanced technology, but those are not conclusive.
It is also valid to say that we are so well adapted to survival (having adapted the environment to us) that evolutionary traits would simply be reabsorbed (the 'stasis/saltation' or 'puncture equilibrium' theory), and evolution is replaced by trade, technology and the complex methods of religion/politics in giving a competition advantage. But that is, it comes to me, rather explaining away the apparent lack of evolution in ourselves, not to mention the other species, who seem to be going extinct rather than adapting.
While I do find the past evidence compelling and the dismissal of the stack of evidence for evolution by Creationists unreasonable and certainly not good science, I can see why Creationists sneer at fruit fly perversions in the laboratory as evidence that evolution is going on all the time.
I do not view our orgin as being involved with Macroevolution , which is vertical transformation really; where one kind of species complettely transforms into another; I still view God as the source of any change in prehistoric man. What some would call adaptations, I would call " Adjustments." Those species who didnot adapt, were simply not adjusted by God to survive. And they were discontinued.
What we now see is an obvious reduction in the evolution of all things, with very few exceptions, none of which are major or dramatic, as compared to primordal evolution.
What do you consider to be slow change? Is it something that takes many years or many decades to happen?
Well, the evolution of life on a significant scale doesn't happen over decades. It doesn't happen over hundreds of years, or even thousands of years. It takes millions of years.
Deep time like the kind required for evolution to be visible is not within the realm of human experience. That's why it may seem to us like it's not happening now. However, it's happening all the time and just as quickly as it always has been.
Oh my. Your unreserved and utter scientific illiteracy on this subject .....
Obviously, you know a great deal more about the physical sciences than I, but I thought evolutionary changes took place so slowly that it would take at least a few thousand years for any noticeable changes to become visible. Therefore, human bodies look pretty much the same as they did during the Crusades, but perhaps a little different from the people that drew on the cave walls in France. I don't see how a single generation of humans would be able to tell if the species is evolving faster or slower than the previous generation.
What do you consider to be slow change? Is it something that takes many years or many decades to happen?
Well, the evolution of life on a significant scale doesn't happen over decades. It doesn't happen over hundreds of years, or even thousands of years. It takes millions of years.
Deep time like the kind required for evolution to be visible is not within the realm of human experience. That's why it may seem to us like it's not happening now. However, it's happening all the time and just as quickly as it always has been.
Happening quickly and all the time , I view as extreme exageration. Listen, just because we believe in something, we have no need to exagerate it. When Theist use exageration, Atheist always notice it and bring that out; you are simply exagerating evolution far beyond what it is. Evolution is not happening all the time; its waning and filtering out all the time if anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
