Originally posted by @apathistIs anyone here at Science Forum taking chaney seriously? No, I don't think so.
Hey chaney3, I don't take you seriously here. I'll remember that whenever I see a post from you.
Kudos to some very patient posters in this thread.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasWait...wut?
Is anyone here at Science Forum taking chaney seriously? No, I don't think so.
We are suppose to take each other seriously?
Originally posted by @chaney3Your ignorance would be funny if it weren't displayed through the same tired old arguments easily debunked years ago
No prediction exists, just guesses from Darwin. And yes, he guessed.
NO apes, or any relative of ape should exist today. They should all be human.
Chimps (and other apes) and humans share a common ancestor. From that ancestor chimps ecolved one way, we and the other hominids evolved another way. It just happens that ancestor became extinct, it isn't a requirement
Another thing:
Darwin is simply the first to come up with this theory, the one who figured out the basics. Since then we come a long way. Trying to dismantle the theory of evolution by looking for inconsistencies in Darwin's work is like teying to disprove physics by pointing greek philosophers from 2000 years ago didn't know quarks existed
4 edits
Originally posted by @zahlanziI think that is a good point.
Another thing:
Darwin is simply the first to come up with this theory, the one who figured out the basics. Since then we come a long way. Trying to dismantle the theory of evolution by looking for inconsistencies in Darwin's work is like trying to disprove physics by pointing greek philosophers from 2000 years ago didn't know quarks existed[/b]
Just for starters, Darwin assumed that evolution always occurs at a constant unvarying rate. We now know that is definitely false i.e. he was wrong about that because of the powerful evidence for punctuated evolution;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
I have heard at least one person attempt to argue against evolution by pointing out this evidence against evolution always occurs at a constant unvarying rate and thus Darwin was wrong about that and then claim that, because Darwin was wrong about that, evolution must be wrong! What they don't understand that whether Darwin was wrong about that is irrelevant to whether evolution is correct because there is no contradiction in it occurring at a variable rate.
In addition, much of the evidence for punctuated evolution IS, unsurprisingly, evidence for evolution.
In addition, he didn't know HOW inherited characteristics mutate nor HOW that information of inherited characteristics is represented in living things because he didn't know about genes or DNA. Does that mean evolution must be wrong? -of course not.
Originally posted by @chaney3Again chaney shows his ignorance.
If evolution were true, all apes and monkeys would be humans by now.
Your 'science' is weak.
Originally posted by @chaney3What I wonder is who is feeding you this bullshyte? Like Freaky, he gets his bullshyte from other people. You are obviously in the same category. So can you admit these are not your ideas and tell us who you are plagiarizing?
If evolution were true, all apes and monkeys would be humans by now.
Your 'science' is weak.