Not only. It also relies on comparative anatomy, genetics, developmental biology, protein comparisons, etc.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not only. It also relies on comparative anatomy, genetics, developmental biology, protein comparisons, etc.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
Read my previous reply please
ehh.. Monkey
+ Photoshopped
Not a monkey, an ape. If you don't know the difference, you should learn it.
Not photoshopped; an artists conception based on the fossils.
Also, this ape walked upright and used tools.
This is a post I make every so often on this topic:
1) Are you made of complex cells with internal organelles? If so, you are a eucaryote.
2) Do your cells have membranes made of lipids rather than walls made from glucosides and are they surrounded by an extracellular matrix composed of collagen and glycoproteins? Then you are an Animal.
3) During embryo development, does the blastopore (the first opening) become the anus? Then you are a Deuterostome.
4) Do you have a head, backbone, brain, red blood cells, and kidneys? Then you are a Vertebrate.
5) Are air-breathing, have hair, three ear bones, sweat glands, the ability to regulate internal temperature and specialized teeth? Then you are a Mammal.
6) Do you lack an epi-pubic bone and do females like you have a uterus which produces a placenta during pregnancy? Then you are a placental Mammal.
7) Do you have a collar bone, opposable fingers, a flat nail on fingers and toes, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, an enlarged cerebral cortex? Then you are a Primate.
8) Do you have a narrow nose and downward pointed nostrils, broad rib cage, a fused frontal bone, convoluted cerebral hemispheres, a large brain for his size of mammal, color vision, a lack of tail, and a lack of cheek pouches? Then you are an Ape.
So, yes, if you are human, then you *are* an ape.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
Since there is a lot of people out there that believe in scientific theories which is good, but actually barely know anything about specific theories, yesterday I read in details what exactly Darwinism is talking about, and here's my conclusion:
(Charles Robert Darwin) was born in 1809 AD and died in 1882 AD. As the Facilitated International Encyclopedia says: He is an English naturalist who studied medicine in Edinburgh ... and then specialized in natural history, and Darwin wrote in his book (The Origin of Species) 1859 CE. He established his theory and the evidence for it in a wonderful way, as well as his theory of the origin of the coral reefs, which has been accepted by many. Among his other works are: (The Origin of Man and Election in Relation to Sex) in 1871 AD, and (The Diversity of Plants and Animals under Domestication in 1867 AD) ended.
As for Darwin's theory, it was based on several things, including:
That man is nothing but an animal from among the animals, accidentally by the path of evolution and ascendancy, and that it is similar to a monkey, it does not preclude that he and he derived it from one origin.
Darwin explained the process of evolution, and how it took place, in several points, the most important of which are:
(Natural selection) whereby the factors of annihilation destroy the weak and weak beings, and the preservation of the strong beings, and this is called the law of (survival of the fittest), so the strong and healthy being who inherits his strong qualities from his offspring remains, and the strong traits combine with the passage of time to form a new trait in the being, and that is ( Evolution) which causes the organism to ascend those emerging traits to a higher being, and thus evolution continues and that is (ascending).
Many scholars have responded to this theory and refuted it: Dr. Suriel says in his book "The Cracking of Darwin's Doctrine": The missing links are incomplete between the layers of biology, and they are not deficient between humans and those below them only. There are no links between primary animals with one cell and animals with Multiple cells, neither between soft animals, nor between arthropods, nor between invertebrates, nor between fish and amphibians, nor between the latter, reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and human animals, and I have mentioned them in the order of their appearance in the geological ages.
Many naturalists have also rejected the theory, including (Dalas), who said his conclusion: (The advancement of natural selection is not true for man, and it must be said that his creation is straightforward) and among them Professor (Farkho) said: It is clear to us from reality that there is a difference between man and monkey Far from it, we cannot judge that a person is a descendant of a monkey or other beasts, and it is not good for us to utter that. ”Among them (Migert) said after looking at many facts from the living: The (Darwin) doctrine cannot be supported and it is from the opinions of naives. Among them (Huxley), a friend of (Darwin), said that with our money of evidence, it has never been proven that a type of plant or animal arose by natural selection, or artificial selection.
And many others I left to mention for short.
Moreover, Darwin's words are theoretical, not a fact or a law, as it tolerates ratification and denial, and yet it is not supported by the observed reality, as if it was true we would have seen many animals and people come into existence through evolution and not only through reproduction.
The ability to adapt that we see in creatures - such as chameleons - for example, (they change their colour according to place) is a capacity for creatures to be born with them, and in some of them they are abundant, and in others they are almost non-existent, and for all creatures they are limited and do not exceed their limits. The ability to adapt is an inherent quality, not an advanced quality that the environment creates, as theorists claim.
This simply proves that Darwin's theory cannot be believed as it has a lot of gaps that was filled with imagination. So until proven otherwise, this theory should not be treated as a fact.
Not random scientists: scientists that have spent their lives attempting to understand some aspects of the world around us. For evolution, the attempt is to lean how living things work, their history, how they can change, etc. It requires a great deal of discipline and honesty.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
If you say humans are apes that would be entirely incorrect even if you take Darwinism in consideration, If we talk according to this theory then Humans are a special type of Apes. Not Apes, express what you say accurately according to your "science"
I am a geologist with over 50+ years experience. What are your qualifications? It is abundantly apparent that you cite old misleading reference and know nothing of the science of evolution. Citing an Encyclopedia of a biography is meaningless.
Charles Darwin was the first to propose a coherent explanation that was a 'beginning' of the science of evolution. The science of evolution today if NOT Darwin's Theory.
Nothing to with the science of evolution Evolution is not a 'cause' it is simply the science of the process of evolution over billions of years based on the objective evidence.
It is interesting that you have failed to respond to my posts.
Terrible response not based on the known science of evolution, which does not reflect any of the above.
A friend of Darwin (Naturalist?) has no relevance to contemporary science of evolution. There are less than a few dozen contemporary scientist in the fields related to evolution that reject the science of evolution.
You have failed to respond to the fact that writers of the Bible believed in geocentrism. Who has the corner on contemporary cosmology?
I suggest you read the book first - On The Origin of Species - and then some criticisms of it, and any later developments. Quoting some criticisms might be useful if you had read it and understood its strengths first. But a knowledge of other science that supports the theory would also be necessary to some extent - for example:
Top 5 Evidences in Favour of Evolution | Evolution | Biology (biologydiscussion.com)
Don't expect much detailed response from me since it was long time ago when I read the book, but if anything has come along since to overthrow this theory as being the best then I think I might have noticed.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
Need your sources Mr.50+ Geologist if you really know what you're talking about, also I wrote this based on Darwin's book (The Origin of Species) it self which is the main source of this whole theory.
Yes, humans are *one* type of ape. Chimpanzees are another. Gorillas are another.
Humans have evolved big brains and developed language. That is our main specialization. From that, all the rest of the technological advances eventually follow.
Why did we develop big brains and language? Probably to coordinate hunting and gathering.
If he finds the ToE dubious, imigine his Incredulity if someone were to explain some of the quantum physics and relativity behind his computer.
I would suggest you read a more recent biology textbook. That way, you will get the modern theory that includes genetics and everything we have learned about comparative biochemistry.
of course, you might have to learn some chemistry, some biochemistry, some genetics, some comparative anatomy, the taxonomy of living things, the way that DNA encodes proteins and how those proteins work in the body.
Darwin was very early on and had to speculate about quite a number of things. After 170 years, we now have detailed information and don't have to speculate any longer.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
If he finds the ToE dubious, imigine his Incredulity if someone were to explain some of the quantum physics and relativity behind his computer.
Well, here lies the problem, All atheists believe creationists are just illiterate and can't study a single branch of science which is obviously incorrect, In fact all modern physics and biology theories were written by creationists who still till now disbelieve a lot of other theories simply because it does not include enough proof.
Not every theory is correct until a practical experiment is held to prove the main point of it, until then scientists cannot say that a thoery is a fact.
And computer simulations.
Loaai
A Logical Scientific Philosopher.
You know what.. You are right, I should take a PHD in this field in order to even talk about it, but you should as well, You can't tell me to read about all of these fields when You didn't from the first place, you can't argue someone about science if YOU barely know anything about science!
This is at best a caricature of what Darwin wrote.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was NOT said by Darwin, but but a social theorist. And it is inaccurate in many details.
This must be a VERY old quote because most of it is wrong.
Link between single celled and multiple celled animals: Volvox.
Between fish and amphibians: rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.
Reptiles and birds: there have been many fossils of this transition discovered over the last couple of decades. Of course, the prototypical example is Archeopterix.
The link between reptiles and mammals is also well documented.
This looks like a quote from the middle 1800's and not a recent one that is based on modern understanding. Maybe you should update your information?
You need more recent sources. These are badly outdated and don't represent current knowledge.
Not all of us.
Oh, believe me, I *have* read these things. You don't need a PhD to be able to discuss these things, but it is a good thing to know the basics. And what I described *are* the basics. I have been interested in this subject for the last 40 years and have read all sides of this debate. What I have found is that, consistently, the evolution deniers distort what the science actually says, lie about what has been discovered, and deny basic facts that we have found in the last 200 years.