Agree to all that
Just to lazy to type it all out
Also I try to feed religious minds simple explanations, down to the level of their thought processes
Origin of humans on the Earth
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Just to lazy to type it all out
Also I try to feed religious minds simple explanations, down to the level of their thought processes
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Origin of humans on the Earth
origin of humans not on earth ?
or
no origin of humans on earth ... ?
[applied philosophy of logic?]
you need to back up your claim in this science forum
making religious claims is ok in the religion thread area, however, you have posted in human science in a science forum
you may wish to take a moment before you post to consider if your jumping too far off the subject terms of the thread.
Last edited:
Why are you asking for explanations, if you won't share all that "evidence"?
I'm not much interested in the first claim, but I would like to see proof that evolution is fake.
(Unless your definition of "fake" is the same as DJ Trump's.)
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Generally speaking, evolution doesn't take place fast enough to observe in the span of a human lifespan. It operates generation by generation.
An exception is bacteria, which reproduce very rapidly and can be observed evolving things like antibiotic resistance in short time spans. The shorter an organism's reproductive cycle, the faster it can be expected to respond to environmental changes.
This, BTW, is perhaps one (of several) reasons why human beings evolved intelligence. Cultural evolution makes it possible to adapt to new conditions far more rapidly than biological evolution makes possible.
Regarding apes, apes are very well adapted for the lifestyles, habitats, foods and challenges that they have lived in for countless thousands of years. That's changing now, with the devastating intrusion of human beings into their environments. So one would expect that apes are experiencing huge selective pressures right now.
Assuming that the great apes aren't driven to extinction, a very real possibility, we might expect to see some rather large changes in them over the next few thousand years, more or less.
No and there almost certainly won't be, unless one is genetically engineered somehow. (Making the genomes compatible might be very difficult.) What we would expect to see are further developments and elaborations on the ape line.
Don't think of evolution like the 'ascent of man' image below. There isn't a single line connecting apes and man, such that if an ape evolves, it will be pushed further in the direction of being a man.
Evolution is more like this:
.jpg)
Humans and apes can be imagined as lying at the end of different branches. If they are induced to evolve by new selective pressures, then one would expect the branches that they occupy to extend and branch again into new variants. We wouldn't expect to see back-tracking and movement out along a different branch.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
If nobody knows how it happened, what kind of experiments would they perform?
Biologists might hypothesize various paths that lead from single-celled protozoa to multicellular organisms with organs and tissues. Those pathways might suggest particular kinds of intermediate variants, part-way through the transformation. Meanwhile biologists are learning more about the first Ediacaran organisms in the Pre-cambrian period in which multicellular life first seems to have appeared. So they could test their hypotheses by trying to determine whether the Ediacaran observations match what they expected to see.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
was there any connections between that and the predator chimpanzees that go monkey hunting ?
i did wonder if this was a learned behavior from human hunters that had been learned and passed on by the chimpanzees as food shortages became compounded with human encroachment.
Did you figure that out on your own? Well, very good, you said something that is correct!!!
Slow clap for that pearl of wisdom
When you get around to providing the 3 nuggets of evidence about Jesus and 3 science nuggets proving evolution is fake you are welcome to link where science has ever claimed dog has produced chicken
I suspect it has been pronounced from a person who does not believe in evolution and from the idiotic remark appears to have no concept of how evolution works
simple is a good word
obtuse is a better one
No. You have to include the environment.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
amen
Pretty much. The lucky ones move on to the next level of competition; the inept ones are sent home.
Take it to the Religion forum. Here, you're posting in a science forum.
This is the second time you've asserted that you have proof that science is faked.
Present your evidence or withdraw your baseless claim.
Dogs and chickens share a common ancestor.
I think what you're seeing as you dig in deeper are the careful qualifications and quantifications of error that scientists attach to their theories and results.
There's a saying that for every equation you include in a popular science book, your sales will halve. A lot of people are afraid of mathematics.
As for uncertainties, a lot of lay people don't understand what they are or why they are crucial in science. They consider scientific statements of quantified uncertainty as being equivalent to a statement that the scientists are just guessing, or similar. Of course creationists, climate deniers, anti-vaxers and so on stand ready to pounce on any statement of uncertainty. They all have a solid, unshakeable belief, formed in the absence of quantified evidence. Not understanding that a 95% confidence, for example, means we're pretty damn sure of the effect being explained, they act as if the 5% chance that we're wrong blows up the entire scientific edifice.
Ignoring the environmental half of the Darwinian two-step, even the generation of genetic variety is not merely, or "only", what one normally labels a "mistake".
Hybridization is not usually thought of as a "mistake".
Sexual recombination is not usually thought of as a "mistake".
In a genetically varied population - a normal population, rather than an inbred one - it is usually impossible to label the varieties "mistakes". There is no "correct" version of the genome.
Many organisms have genetically preserved and inherited capabilities of genetic alteration, excision, inclusion, duplication, mutation, exchange, even symbiosis, etc, - calling the results "mistakes" seems a bit odd, as the organism is set up to abet their occurrence.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
- Status