LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
if we examine all we can between various animals, it shows that man is more closely related to apes. therefore apes and man have a common ancestor. he he
-
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!
Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
Nope, that is *one* piece of the evidence. Also available is genetics, for example. And genetics is often used to show relatedness and ancestry.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
@LightofTruth why do you think scientists "look at animals' similarities and say 'evolutionary ancestry'"?
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
Good question.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
Human beings create other human beings. Apes create other apes. Apes do not create human beings.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yep. So what do you think is the reason the world's scientists have done such a thing for over a century?
Why do you assume that is true over the course of millions of years? Especially when the available evidence shows it to be wrong?
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
the best adaption would be for us all to have wings.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really should try to get past a fifth grade level of science literacy.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Since you are an ape any child that you will have or have had will be of was an ape too. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.
Perhaps you take personal offense in the fact that your mother was an ape as well.
Oddly enough I am willing to bet that you do not deny that you are a mammal.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
Why? it's all based on the faulty idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor (bacteria). and from bacteria we get all the different species there are or have ever been.
Has that mutation shown up? Is there any reason to suspect it would? Given our size, those wings would not be able to produce flight, so what was the advantage again?
How does that compare to an increase in brain size (simple adjustment of timing) and jaw size (another timing adjustment), together allowing the development of language and more complex interactions?
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
A mammal is a classification base on observation of species. So what.
Why do you assume those ideas are faulty?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
What are the holes? Do you really think you can bring anything to this discussion that hasn't been refuted a thousand time? That hasn't been heard before?
Well, what did you *expect* it to be based on? Observation of planets?
But I note that 'ape' is also based on observation of species. So our classification as a mammal and as an ape are equally reasonable.
yes, mammals have a great number of shared characteristics, including at the genetic level. We also have an extensive fossil record of early mammals and how they developed from the reptile ancestors.
Google is your friend. Youtube can be your teacher. Ill give you 1 glaring hole, where did the first Atom/cell/ molecule or whatever it is evolutionist believe in, come from?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So let's see if you can answer the question that @LightofTruth has avoided.
If what you say is true (evolution has major holes and is blind faith), how then do you explain the fact that the world's life scientists have, for over a century, agreed that evolution/common descent is real and accurate? Are they all bad at their jobs? Are they part of a massive conspiracy?
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
The adaptation process has been a real pain in the neck. maybe I need a better neck. it seems the brain adaption works much better than the other parts. Not so good for some though.