1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassWe know the answer; he didn't.. I just hate it when stupid people idiotically make up total rubbish like that.
Where/when did Darwin say this?
Originally posted by @wildgrassUnlike a typical whodey claim, this one appears to hold some grain of truth:
Quotes, please.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
The Descent of Man, p200-201
Charles Darwin was not aware of the existence of DNA, so he could not have known that the various "races" of man are in fact highly similar and show less genetic diversity than is found in e.g. chimps.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThanks for the quote!
Unlike a typical whodey claim, this one appears to hold some grain of truth:
[quote]The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not ...[text shortened]... of man are in fact highly similar and show less genetic diversity than is found in e.g. chimps.
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarThere are many lines of direct evidence for evolution:
According to the Bible, slavery is acceptable.
As to the question of evolution. ..
Is it reproducible? Has anyone actually seen it happen? I mean maco version of course.
Can evolution explain life without abiogenesis?
Anatomy (i.e. homologous structures)
Molecular biology ( DNA and the genetic code)
Biogeography (The global distribution of organisms)
Fossils. (duh)
Direct observation. (in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g. anti-bacterial resistance)). I believe also that macroevolutionary speciation events have been observed in plants as well, although I'm not an expert on that stuff.
There's too many converging lines of evidence for evolution to be wrong as we understand it. Obviously though these concepts are refined over time, and Darwin wasn't right about everything. If you use a multi-disciplinary approach, combining/comparing evolutionary data from multiple sources (fossil records to estimate speciation events, nucleotide differences between species, and observed rates of mutation) they can consistently predict genetic rates of change. These results are highly reproducible among different speciation events.
You're asking a lot of a scientific theory, though, if you want it to explain life.
Originally posted by @chaney3Why?
No apes, chimps or orangutan should exist today.
They should all be human.
Apes evolved according to their environment.
Originally posted by @chaney3Nope.
What does evolve mean?
Apes evolved into human. Right?
Yet...apes still exist.
Evolution is wrong.
You have no idea of EVOLUTION.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainWe have already told him this.
Let me simplify this for you:
All apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor that is now extinct.
He as no ability to learn anything that goes against his weird religious beliefs.
He knows everything already, he thinks. As he already sits in the lap of god. 😕
Originally posted by @chaney3If you were born from your parents, your brothers and sisters should not exist.
If humans evolved from apes, as absurd as that theory is, then NO apes should exist today. They should all be human.
Evolution is absurd
Same logic.
Originally posted by @chaney3Apparently this silly troll bait has to be dragged out every now and then.
If humans evolved from apes, as absurd as that theory is, then NO apes should exist today. They should all be human.
Evolution is absurd
Originally posted by @js357Yeah, like Chaney is such an absolute expert on all things evolutionary he can make sweeping statements like, thinking he is 100% correct since his Phd thesis covered this subject and he proved Darwin wrong to his college boards. Amazing, eh. I really want to see that thesis paper.
Apparently this silly troll bait has to be dragged out every now and then.