Evolution: is it necessary to know how life ultimately began in order to study and debate the evidence that evolution has since occurred? [Spirituality & Religion]
If you think it is, why do you think so? Can you explain that reasoning for me?
I ask because i've encountered a creationist's position that the evidence for evolution can be ignored if we don't know how life began. I point out that the theory of gravitation still allows us to study the interactions of matter without knowing how it came to be but this apt comparison appears to be ignored.
Since i've received no explanation from the parties involved, i'm coming to YOU! So. Thoughts?🙂
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Evolution can be discussed but scientists change their mind all the time because of new developments. God doesn't change and truth remains constant, so scientists will eventually come to truth but there sure has been a lot of mistakes along the way. The beginning is important because there has to be a creator for this organized world.
Evolution is very popular because man want to dismiss God desperately, because then we have no one to account our behavior to. But there is no missing link. Where is the ape man? No where to be found. So its just a lie to ease mans anxiety that Jesus really is coming back to judge the living and the dead, yup!
[quote]but scientists change their mind all the time because of new developments. [/quote]
Yes, carazaa. But as i've explained before (and i would like you to try and internalize this, this time) the correct time to reject scientific evidence is [i]after[/i] contradictory evidence is presented, not before and not on the basis that science corrects itself.
[quote]The beginning is important because there has to be a creator for this organized world. [/quote]
It is certainly important that there be a beginning. But is it important to know what that beginning is in the context of being able to study the result?
[quote]Evolution is very popular because man want to dismiss God desperately, because then we have no one to account our behavior to.[/quote]
I feel that i've addressed this notion before as well. Evolution is very popular because there is an overwhelming body of evidence for it. There are many christians who accept evolution so their motivation can be wanting to dismiss god. Nor is it mine nor that of any atheist i've ever encountered.
We DO have to account for our behaviour. To each other. Every day.
[quote]But there is no missing link. Where is the ape man? No where to be found. [/quote]
No carazaa, they've been found. There are a great number of links in the chain between modern humans and our other hominid ancestors. I don't understand why this continues to be a point that some creationists raise. The homo family tree is very well fleshed out.
@Pikachu [i]Today[/i] there should be an alive apeman [i]if[/i] we come from apes! Why? Because there are apes, [b]and[/b] there is man. Where is the living apeman?? Are you saying that apes just [i]stopped[/i] developing into man? That's kind of illogical, don't you think?
Well we ARE apes, carazaa. We're classified as great apes along with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. But i know that's not what you meant.
[quote]Today there should be an alive apeman [/quote]
Tell me what you mean by an "apeman" and explain why you believe that there should be one alive today. I don't understand your reasoning that since there are other apes as well as human beings that we must then expect to see an "apeman".
@Pikachu We are NOT apes!!! We are smarter than apes. AND there are apes. Where is the apeman, the missing link. If there is NO missing link then I just can't believe in that, sorry! If we come from Apes then all stages would be in process now, and it isn't. We have apes, and we have man. We did not come from apes!
On what factual basis do you make that claim? We're smarter than other apes, yes. But a parrot is a lot smarter than a chicken. Does that mean the chicken isn't bird? And a chimp has the same level of development as a 5 year old human, btw.
[quote]AND there are apes. Where is the apeman, the missing link. [/quote]
Help me out here, carazaa. I need you to work with me. Tell me what you mean by an "apeman" and explain why you believe that there should be one alive today or what the presence of other apes has to do with that.
[quote]If there is NO missing link[/quote]
Haven't i just shared with you a link showing that there are a great number of links in the human evolution change? To what "missing link" are you referring?
@Pikachu If we come from Apes, then there should be living evolution in process showing a ape [i]developing [/i]into a man. Where is that person that is not as smart as a human and not an ape? There is no such missing link therefor I do not believe in evolution. It is a lie!
There has been many extinct animals because of floods and other natural disasters so there should be a lot of animals that are extinct that God made that look like a bird and a land animal but that does [i]not [/i]at all prove one came from another unless right now we see live animals evolving. So, no such thing! is false! God created everything, and man is not an Ape, never was. We have similarities but we could not come from Apes, Why? because Apes are apes, humans are humans and there is nothing in between! No missing link!
[quote]then there should be living evolution in process showing a ape developing into a man.[/quote]
This is an erroneous assumption. Can you explain to me why you believe this must be the case? Why do you believe there should be living intermediary stages of a given family?
[quote]but that does not at all prove one came from another[/quote]
Certainly. Phenotype alone is not enough to necessarily prove a close shared ancestor. But looking alike is not all we have to go one. We can look at their bones, their embryonic development, their fossils and most importantly their genetics. All these lines of evidence keep pointing towards evolution. How can you logically ignore these lines of evidence simply because you don't see a reptile evolving into a mammal?
[quote] and man is not an Ape, never was. We have similarities but we could not come from Apes, Why? because Apes are apes, humans are humans [/quote]
Carazaa, i want you to take a breath here. I'm only saying this because you've told me that you pride yourself on being a logical person. What you've done there is a tautology. It's not an argument. You asserted that apes are apes and humans are humans and therefor humans can't be apes. Your assuming the legitimacy of your premise, not proving it.
[quote]there is nothing in between! No missing link![/quote]
Ok, i want you to specifically answer what i'm about to ask you because i'm getting the impression that you've been ignoring it.
Are you ignoring the many examples of intermediate stages of hominid evolution that are present in the fossil record? If so, on what grounds are you rejecting them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
@Pikachu Yeah I need to take a breath alright, because you make no sense. Why is it necessary to have a missing link? Because otherwise evolution stopped ! Why would it stop?
@Pikachu Like I said before the fossil records show extingt animals and is no proof of current evolution or past evolution!
Yeah I need to take a breath alright, because you make no sense. Why is it necessary to have a missing link? Because otherwise evolution stopped ! Why would it stop??
Sadly the creationists who seek the missing link never stop. Let's say you want a missing link between 1 and 3..and science proves to you 2 is the missing link,then the creationists ask well where is the missing link between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3? They divide and subdivide all the time. Creationists will never be happy when a missing link is found..They will always want a missing link between what has been discovered and what was already known.
I'm not saying there's no missing link nor that evolution stopped. In fact i've repeatedly pointed out to you that there are many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils There are many intermediary fossil remains of human ancestors. There are many fossil remains for turtle ancestors and bird ancestors and mammal ancestors. There are "missing links" everywhere in the fossil record.
I 'm asking you for two very specific things, carazaa. I'd appreciate it if you would answer:
1) what specifically do you mean by "apeman" and 2) why do you feel that there should be one currently living if evolution is true?
[quote]Like I said before the fossil records show extingt animals and is no proof of current evolution or past evolution! [/quote]
But why not?
If you see footprints leading from a dead body to a bloody knife to a man with bloody hands, are you not justified in connecting that evidence even if you don't see it happen before your eyes?
If you see certain structure at various stages of change in the fossil record all the way up to living animals, why are you not justified in making that connect? Like mammalian inner ear bones or the development of the turtle's shell or the wing claws on some modern birds. When we look into the gene code and see that chickens still have the genes for lizard tails and teeth, why are we not justified in connecting those clues reptiles?
You keep ignoring my questions!! Because you don't have the answers no one does, evolution is not true. As I have repeatedly explained there is NO living missing link between Ape and man. If evolution was correct than it would not stop but continue and we would see an ape man something between an ape and a man. But we don't!!
All the fossils that have traits between animals are extinct, not a proof of evolution. You jump to conclusion and that is a no no in science. But they do that because they don't know, so they guess basically, and call it a theory! If there were fossils of evolution then we would see animals evolving now. Don't say no because then you have to explain why it stopped. It never stopped because it never started! That's why! Fossils are not valid proof of evolution, see! They are proof of extinct animals at best.
I apologise if it appears that way. That is certainly not my intention. Perhaps it would help to number your questions so that i can address the specifically.
Now i hope you'll show me the same courtesy and finally answer my questions for you. I'm not trying to trap you, carazaa. I'm trying to understand how you arrive at the conclusions you've made. Please answer these two questions for me:
1) what specifically do you mean by "apeman" and 2) why do you feel that there should be one currently living if evolution is true?
You keep telling me that we should see this apeman living today but you appear unwilling to explain why you believe we should see that. That's all i'm asking of you.
Thanks in advance🙂
[quote]All the fossils that have traits between animals are extinct, not a proof of evolution[/quote]
If you like. But they're certainly evidence. And you seem to be ignoring the other lines of evidence beyond fossils like genetics and ontognetic embryology.
[quote]then we would see animals evolving now.[/quote]
We do. We see descent with modification of inherited traits. That's evolution. Given what we know of the timelines involved, why would you expect to see huge changes happening before your eyes?
[quote]! Fossils are not valid proof of evolution,[/quote]
I think you're dismissing the evidence without sufficient reason. For example, when we can see the bones of various turtle ancestors over thousands of years gradually forming a modern turtle shell, why should that not be considered evidence? When we see the limbs of ambulocetus gradually form into the flippers of a whale, why should we not consider that evidence? Understand, i'm demanding that you accept this as proof, i'm asking you to explain on what grounds you can ignore the direction in which that evidence points: evolution with common descent.
BUT IF YOU ANSWER NOTHING ELSE, i want you to answer those first two questions please and thanks.
A. Where is the living evolution between an Ape and a Man. An "Apeman" in between a Ape and a man. We should see living evolving of different intelligence and in between animals, "missing links"
B. If there isn't why did evolution stop?
c. The fossils are not necessary evolution but extinct animals, we need to NOT jump to conclusions. Why are you jumping to the conclusion of evolution instead of maybe they are animals that died that are no longer present?
D. If those are really fossils then where are the animals in progress of evolving now, living, where are they?
my answers Again!
1. I explained what I meant by Apeman numerous times. It is any animal living that is currently evolving from an Ape to a man. There is no such animal.
2. If evolution is true then we need to see it in process in living animals, otherwise it stopped. Why because if evolution is in process than naturally it continues and we would see many developmental stages in every animal especially alive proof of Apes developing into humans but we don't.
[quote]A. Where is the living evolution between an Ape and a Man. An "Apeman" in between a Ape and a man. We should see living evolving of different intelligence and in between animals, "missing links"[/quote]
There is no living species in between modern apes and man because modern man didn't not evolve from modern apes. We both evolved from a common ancestor.
[quote]B. If there isn't why did evolution stop? [/quote]
That lack of a living "in between" species does not mean that evolution stopped. We'll get to that.
[quote]c. The fossils are not necessary evolution but extinct animals, we need to NOT jump to conclusions.[/quote]
But neither do you get to reject that evidence out of hand as you are doing. You are not citing competing evidence. You are not explaining where the conclusions are flawed. You are simply saying that they don't show what they appear to show. And i would like you to acknowledge that fossils appear to show the same conclusion as genetics and phylogeny and embryology. There are different lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. How can you possibly characterize that as jumping to conclusions?
[quote]D. If those are really fossils then where are the animals in progress of evolving now, living, where are they?[/quote]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I've explained that there are animals evolving today. Descent with modification and speciation have been observed in a lab. Maybe this is the sort of thing you mean?
[quote]1. I explained what I meant by Apeman numerous times. It is any animal living that is currently evolving from an Ape to a man. There is no such animal.[/quote]
Ok. Good to know.
[quote] if evolution is in process than naturally it continues and we would see many developmental stages in every animal especially alive proof of Apes developing into humans but we don't[/quote].
I feel your answer to this question is really at the heart of the misunderstanding between us. Why do you feel that there should be living examples of an ape-like ancestor in the midst of becoming more human when such animals could have lived (and did according to the science) but subsequently went extinct? I just don't understand why you feel that each stage should be represented by a living species. Why is it so hard to accept the idea that evolutionary stages of humans died out? Furthermore, why do you think that an ape-like creature would be evolving to become more human like? Human is not a goal towards which other apes are progressing. It is one offshoot of an evolutionary tree which delivered adaptive success. There are many, many other ways to be successful in evolutionary terms.
@Pikachu Sorry for my impatience 🤗 We are just going to have to agree to disagree with some things here. Its OK. I respect your tolerance for the "evidence" of evolution if you accept and tolerate the "evidence" of God!
I'm happy to agree to disagree on what the evidence shows for now. But i really am interested in hearing why you believe that we should be seeing living examples of each stage of evolution, particularly ape evolution, otherwise evolution has stopped. Because it seems to be a large barrier for you in accepting the legitimacy of evolution. I just really want to understand why that's what you expect to see.
If you're up to it at some point. Not necessarily tonight. I'm heading off now anyway. Goodnight🙂
@Carazaa [quote]Evolution is very popular because man want to dismiss God desperately, because then we have no one to account our behavior to. But there is no missing link. Where is the ape man? No where to be found. So its just a lie to ease mans anxiety that Jesus really is coming back to judge the living and the dead, yup![/quote]
The term 'missing link’ (I assume that's what you're referring to) is a pre-Darwinian term first used by the geologist Charles Lyall. It is based on the deistic notion of a 'great chain of being'... with single-celled life at the bottom and some sort of magical entity at the top, with humans right next to it (creationists are hung-up on hierarchies). This is what is behind those silly pictures creationists draw of several creatures in a line slowly morphing from something lemur-like to a modern human.
It is a static, non-evolutionary concept, and is irrelevant in any discussion of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which consistently and coherently accounts for the evidence that all primates (apes, bonobos, humans, and chimpanzees) are descended from a common ancestor which lived from 70 million years ago until around 40 million years ago (I would be happy to discuss all that with you, should you so wish).
@newjaninev2 Ok thank you for helping me with this question. So go ahead explain why there is not a single animal that is "almost" human now if evolution is still going on or did it stop?
