Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[Godobeyer]

Hi all

I have some question :

Why did not find man in deep past , with missing parts noise,ears,tongue ,eyes , for exemple :

human with one hand , human without fingeres , birds without wings .......etc

is not this the main concept of the evolution ?

 

[philbo]

is not this the main concept of the evolution ?

No

 

[Windwalker]

Hi all

I have some question :

Why did not find man in deep past , with missing parts noise,ears,tongue ,eyes , for exemple :

human with one hand , human without fingeres , birds without wings .......etc

is not this the main concept of the evolution ?

That's a very poor understanding of evolution. You would not find a "man" lacking modern features. You would find earlier life forms that lacked the features modern men do. If want to roll it all the way back, you would find an ancient sea-sponge, which has no bones, legs, arms, nervous system, ears, hands, etc. But to say that was a "human" would be nothing but pure ignorance.

 

[Godobeyer]

No

so ?

 

[Windwalker]

Actually, I just re-read your question. Would you find a bird without wings? Yes. They would have been called dinosaurs back then, before they evolved into birds.

 

[Godobeyer]

Actually, I just re-read your question. Would you find a bird without wings? Yes. They would have been called dinosaurs back then, before they evolved into birds.

but dinosaurs were extincted .

 

[idav]

but dinosaurs were extincted .

That means either their lineage evolved or their lineage died off. Nothing today is in the exact same form it was in dinosaur age. So to really picture species around the time of the dinosaurs, it's easier to just forget about any animals alive currently.

 

[Windwalker]

but dinosaurs were extincted .

I'm sorry you don't really understand evolution. I'll see if I can help. You can get a more detailed understanding of the evolution of dinosaurs into birds here: Birds: The Late Evolution of Dinosaurs | Natural History Museum of Los Angeles

It is a misunderstanding that the species that something evolved from needs to be still in existence. Also, not all life went extinct when the dinosaurs as such went extinct. If it had, we would not be here today. Those particular earlier forms may have gone extinct, but not the later forms. Our common ancestor in the human family went extinct too.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Godobeyer, Your question expresses a profound truth. The fossil record has consistently illustrated that the theory of evolution is invalid. Despite a few disproven claims, no fossil of any creature in transition from one species to another has ever been found. Even in the very oldest layers of strata, fossils of plants and animals are of creatures that first appeared on earth in their distinct, specialized forms.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hi all

I have some question :

Why did not find man in deep past , with missing parts noise,ears,tongue ,eyes , for exemple :

human with one hand , human without fingeres , birds without wings .......etc

is not this the main concept of the evolution ?

No doubt, the mutations you've described have happened over the hundreds of millions of years of evolution. But critters born lacking very useful features would not fare well when competing with others. But consider the legless lizard (not the same as a snake)....it lost its legs, but it found a niche wherein it survived & still thrives.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hi all

I have some question :

Why did not find man in deep past , with missing parts noise,ears,tongue ,eyes , for exemple :

human with one hand , human without fingeres , birds without wings .......etc

is not this the main concept of the evolution ?

Ever seen an Emu? It's a bird, that technically has arms. But they have no muscle connected to them. It's just bone and some skin draped over it. It is impossible for the creature to move those 'arms'. And I say 'arms' rather than 'wings' because despite being utterly impossible to move, it has a claw on the end of it. An actual, genuine claw. That it can never use. Because the most those 'arms' move? That's when it breathes, and the arms aren't moving, it's being moved with the ribcage.

Behold, the Emu's claw.

A better angle.

An utterly useless appendage. It does nothing. The Tyrannosaurus, famous for its piddly little two-clawed arms, could do more with its arms than the Emu can.

 

[Godobeyer]

That means either their lineage evolved or their lineage died off. Nothing today is in the exact same form it was in dinosaur age. So to really picture species around the time of the dinosaurs, it's easier to just forget about any animals alive currently.

So we comes (evolved) from Dinosaurs ?
Why total evolution theory supporters always count on the TIME ?

this is far for my points :

did the evolution made new parts in body of creature ?

IF TOTAL evolution of creation theory is very correct , so we suppose our lineage species had missed body parts.

does our lineage had missed parts of body (without leg , without fingeres, without eyes ...etc) ?

 

[idav]

So we comes (evolved) from Dinosaurs ?
Why total evolution theory supporters always count on the TIME ?

this is far for my points :

did the evolution made new parts in body of creature ?

IF TOTAL evolution of creation theory is very correct , so we suppose our lineage species had missed body parts.

does our lineage had missed parts of body (without leg , without fingeres, without eyes ...etc) ?

No we come from a common ancestor , a mammal, that was along same time of dinosaurs.

we had limbs in the age of dinosaurs, you have to go much further back before emerging onto land. But yes, if you go far back enough no limbs.

 

[Godobeyer]

Ever seen an Emu? It's a bird, that technically has arms. But they have no muscle connected to them. It's just bone and some skin draped over it. It is impossible for the creature to move those 'arms'. And I say 'arms' rather than 'wings' because despite being utterly impossible to move, it has a claw on the end of it. An actual, genuine claw. That it can never use. Because the most those 'arms' move? That's when it breathes, and the arms aren't moving, it's being moved with the ribcage.

Behold, the Emu's claw.

A better angle.

An utterly useless appendage. It does nothing. The Tyrannosaurus, famous for its piddly little two-clawed arms, could do more with its arms than the Emu can.

thanks for this info .

you forget Penguin

how about creature without heart,lung,blood ...etc in evolution theory ?

 

[Godobeyer]

No we come from a common ancestor , a mammal, that was along same time of dinosaurs.

we had limbs in the age of dinosaurs, you have to go much further back before emerging onto land. But yes, if you go far back enough no limbs.

does the evolution thoery said : does our ancestor had missed body parts ?

 

[philbo]

so ?

You asked "is not this the main concept of the evolution ?", so I answered your question.

There are so many books and websites that can explain what evolution is far better than I can. It is painfully obvious from the OP that you've done no reading on & around the subject, presumably the only instruction you've been given in what evolution is has come from a creationist who is either intentionally misleading you, or doesn't understand either.

Just like people who misunderstand, and say "the fossil record is invalid because it missing this or that transition", you're looking at it entirely the wrong way around. Look at what the fossil record shows, there are an uncountable number of fossils that undisputably show a change over the ages, which by definition is evolution. So rather than point out how things you've just made up don't show up in the fossil record, try and explain what the fossil record does show: if whatever flavour of god you believe in did create us as we are, why do you think he put all these fossils in the ground to make us think that he hadn't?

[edit for syntax fail]

 

[Nietzsche]

thanks for this info .

you forget Penguin

A penguin has wings. We just call them flippers because they're used in the water.

how about creature without heart,lung,blood ...etc in evolution theory ?

There are certain things required for certain kinds of life. If you want something 'alive' without blood, lungs and such...a plant. Moulds. Those are all alive, they evolve, but they are not animals.

 

[LuisDantas]

Godobeyer, Your question expresses a profound truth. The fossil record has consistently illustrated that the theory of evolution is invalid. Despite a few disproven claims, no fossil of any creature in transition from one species to another has ever been found. Even in the very oldest layers of strata, fossils of plants and animals are of creatures that first appeared on earth in their distinct, specialized forms.

I would expect a Catholic to be better informed than you are showing to be here.

 

[LuisDantas]

thanks for this info .

you forget Penguin

how about creature without heart,lung,blood ...etc in evolution theory ?

That is not even close to what the Theory of Evolution would expect. Evolution is about life forms that are fully functional differentiating along generations into forms that are better adapted to their environments.

I don't know why you would expect missing organs in remote ancestors. Some of our ancestors were simpler lifeforms, but not incomplete ones.

 

[idav]

does the evolution thoery said : does our ancestor had missed body parts ?

The theory of evolution says all animals, including plants come from a common ancestor, and yes this common ancestor for all life did not have those things limbs eyes or nose. However common ancestor for all mammals is more recent in time, that ancestor did have those things. The answer just depends on how far you want to go back.