Evolution of what?

[YoursTrue]

How many times must we remind you that science is not guesswork? You don't seem to understand the process of science. You persist in equating it with religion.

So you're saying that all the controversies now proposed by highly educated scientists and researchers are based on unfounded basis, is that right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A "modern" ape never became a human? Can you explain that remark? Let me guess. You mean modern apes are not human, is that what you mean?
Plus you don't know what 'ape' all are said by most evolutionists to share...furthermore, I have been doing research about the theory of evolution and find scientists are disputing among themselves about so many ideas inherent in the theory with specifics.
Anyway, have a nice evening, and thanks y'all for the discussion. It is quite interesting, especially when researching the comments of scientists deeply involved in the recognition of whatever theory might be explored. While it can be more than complicated, I have learned a lot and that right now about the deep controversies among scientists who are deeply involved in the theory. Soooo, have a good evening. Truly.

Yes, modern apes did not become human. Do you want to know the traits that we share with other apes?

And yes, when it comes to very minor specific facts there are disagreements. All sciences are like that. They argue, present evidence, and do more research until they have the answer figured out. No one writes the answers out ahead of time. No one is automatically correct. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times must we remind you that science is not guesswork? You don't seem to understand the process of science. You persist in equating it with religion.

Maybe it's time you read the scientific controversies going on about classification and categories. I am more or less finished with this argument, I have proven to myself that scientists are out when it comes to agreeing as to what actually constitutes the theory of evolution. So I thank you for your opinions and insults about my lack of education and understanding. It's been helpful. Caused me also to do more research about these things and see that scientists themselves do not agree about the theory as proposed. Have a good one. If you have questions, I suggest you research.

 

[Valjean]

A "modern" ape never became a human? Can you explain that remark? Let me guess. You mean modern apes are not human, is that what you mean?

No human alive today descended from any species of chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orang, or gibbon that currently exists.

Plus you don't know what 'ape' all are said by most evolutionists to share.

Huh???

..furthermore, I have been doing research about the theory of evolution and find scientists are disputing among themselves about so many ideas inherent in the theory with specifics.

Of course! That's how science works. You take a set of observations, propose explanations, and invite attack by as many others in the field as you can entice to comment.
That's the whole point of science -- developing then trying to disprove hypotheses. Scientific testing is the attempt to disprove a hypotheses. Scientists always dispute each other's ideas, even when they believe they're correct.

The basic mechanisms of evolution are not in dispute. They're universally accepted; having withstood every attempt to disprove them over the past century and a half, while amassing voluminous supporting evidence.

Anyway, have a nice evening, and thanks y'all for the discussion. It is quite interesting, especially when researching the comments of scientists deeply involved in the recognition of whatever theory might be explored.

People with degrees, attempting to validate pre-conceived, religious doctrine, are not what I'd call scientists.

 

[Valjean]

I looked up some stuff about mutations. (The scientific) jury is not only out but actually undefinable regarding the accuracy of the theory at large. Thanks. I'm getting close to finish my examination of what scientists believe then and now about evolution, the theory of.

Sorry, not following. What point are you making?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, modern apes did not become human. Do you want to know the traits that we share with other apes?

And yes, when it comes to very minor specific facts there are disagreements. All sciences are like that. They argue, present evidence, and do more research until they have the answer figured out. No one writes the answers out ahead of time. No one is automatically correct. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Don't you believe that humans are apes?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, not following. What point are you making?

That when I looked up some stuff about mutations I found that (the scientific) jury is not only out but actually undefinable regarding the accuracy of the theory at large. And I'm getting close to finish my examination of what scientists believe then and now about evolution, the theory of.

 

[YoursTrue]

No human alive today descended from any species of chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orang, or gibbon that currently exists.

Huh???

Of course! That's how science works. You take a set of observations, propose explanations, and invite attack by as many others in the field as you can entice to comment.
That's the whole point of science -- developing then trying to disprove hypotheses. Scientific testing is the attempt to disprove a hypotheses. Scientists always dispute each other's ideas, even when they believe they're correct.

The basic mechanisms of evolution are not in dispute. They're universally accepted; having withstood every attempt to disprove them over the past century and a half, while amassing voluminous supporting evidence.

People with degrees, attempting to validate pre-conceived, religious doctrine, are not what I'd call scientists.

Do the research...it's easy to find. And because you're so smart I don't have to tell you what to look for. So hope you have a good one, take care, thanks for the discussion and helping me to check the scientific viewpoint out about the theory of evolution.

 

[Heyo]

Maybe it's time you read the scientific controversies going on about classification and categories. I am more or less finished with this argument, I have proven to myself that scientists are out when it comes to agreeing as to what actually constitutes the theory of evolution.

Scientists are discussing that what is still in question. For someone in the field it is important to keep track of that. But have you also studied what is not in question? All the things that are considered consensus and therefore don't to be discussed any more?

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists are discussing that what is still in question. For someone in the field it is important to keep track of that. But have you also studied what is not in question? All the things that are considered consensus and therefore don't to be discussed any more?

I figure there must be some things you believe and which scientists believe which are not in question. By you or them. That doesn't mean, however, that they're right or true. Furthermore, I am not contesting everything that scientists say, that's for sure. But thanks for your question. Scientists themselves have serious doubts about what has been accepted and taught by others. Some scientists, anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do evolutionists also have a family tree (phylogenetic) for plants

Off course.

, just like the one they invented for animals?

It wasn't "invented". It was mapped out from data (fully sequenced genomes).

If the answer is yes: can you superimpose one on top of the other to find out what did the first animals eat, those that did not yet "know" the plants and fruits that would supposedly appear millions of years later?

A phylogenetic tree shows you how species related to one another family-wise. Not what their diet was.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And here again: What did an apple tree have to adapt to and be able to survive to become a banana plant?

Do you really think this is a sensible question?
Where on earth did you get the ignorant idea that banana's descend from apples????

...I am referring to that evolution of plants; I am not satisfied with the simplism of some storytellers.

I could honestly ask if you would be satisfied by anthying that didn't match your a priori beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am a very coherent person. I am showing all incoherences of the theory of evolution to rational thinkers, so they can think by themselves and do not accept what others want they to.

You don't even seem to have a coherent understanding of evolution theory.
So much so that you don't even seem to be able to ask sensible questions about it without them being loaded up with sheer ignorance and strawmen.


I'm always baffled by how creationist think they are able to properly argue against a theory of which they don't even grasp the basics of the basics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the coherent alternative then?

A woman being poofed into existence through magic from the rib of a man, obviously.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you really think this is a sensible question?

I do.

Where on earth did you get the ignorant idea that banana's descend from apples????

So far that I know of banana trees remain banana trees and apple trees remain apple trees.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see nothing logical or rational in believing that something that obviously shows intelligent design has arisen on its own.

Only because you refuse to properly study evolution and the evidence for it.
Willful ignorance is not an argument against it.

Nor do I see anything strange in those who think they are apes believing such a thing. An ape wouldn't understand that someone built the house in the middle of the jungle.

Since you seem to have emotional issues with the word "ape", let's forget about that for a second.
Instead, ponder this question: are humans mammals?

You do know what a mammal is, right?
Are humans mammals?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The particular wonderment I have now about the theory of evolution is the guesswork that seems many engage in and adhere to.

What "guesswork" would that be?

It's not that I don't have questions about other things, but my curiosity is about the things like switching from fish to humans (in the long run...I mean evolving not switching although it should not be a misnomer) and how evolutionists figure by evidence that fish became mammals as if that happened by incremental genetic changes.

It's a process that took several hundred million years.
Which part are you having trouble with?

If you expect someone to give you a detailed rundown of this lineage generation by generation in a forum post, you should realize how that is simply a ridiculous request.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, modern apes did not become human. Do you want to know the traits that we share with other apes?

Let me guess. Um...there are two arms and two legs. Let's see...it takes a male and female to cause a female to give birth. Let's see -- a monkey face can be said to resemble a human face -- um...we all have to go to the bathroom -- and eat -- and drink -- anything else? Oh, ok, some chimps or others can take a stick and use it -- oh no wait a minute, babies can do that sometimes -- ? Oh, and the various entities, like gorillas and chimps, etc., have teeth and two eyes and two ears.

And yes, when it comes to very minor specific facts there are disagreements. All sciences are like that. They argue, present evidence, and do more research until they have the answer figured out. No one writes the answers out ahead of time. No one is automatically correct. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I'd love to say however it happened but I can't, you know why? Because no one really knows...of the human race.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I looked up some stuff about mutations. (The scientific) jury is not only out but actually undefinable regarding the accuracy of the theory at large. Thanks. I'm getting close to finish my examination of what scientists believe then and now about evolution, the theory of.

From which creationists propaganda sources did you get this nonsense?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe it's time you read the scientific controversies going on about classification and categories. I am more or less finished with this argument, I have proven to myself that scientists are out when it comes to agreeing as to what actually constitutes the theory of evolution. So I thank you for your opinions and insults about my lack of education and understanding. It's been helpful. Caused me also to do more research about these things and see that scientists themselves do not agree about the theory as proposed. Have a good one. If you have questions, I suggest you research.

Sounds like you argument against evolution is that we don't know everything about everything remotely connected to biology and somehow you think that allows you to dismiss the whole thing.