I Have a Question
So you don't believe humans evolved.
Why?
Explain your reasoning.
Why?
Explain your reasoning.
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
kajira · 31-35, F
Maybe the question is backwards. The natural null hypothesis is there is no evolution. So perhaps the better question is why do you believe humans evolved. It is simple to believe in the null hypothesis. Changing your belief to something else (such as evolution happened) should be done on the basis of evidence. What evidence have you seen for evolution? Or, is it simply something you read about in a book, or heard from people on TV. When you look at the topic critically, you find you are making a LOT of assumptions.
It seems odd to disparage someone because they do not accept your assumptions. (And Monster's comments, although phrased as "questions", are full of assumptions). Perhaps it is rooted in an elitist attitude that your books are better than another person's books.
Even so, A good place to start is to define what you mean by "evolution". The most general idea of evolution is simply "change". This in itself is a complex topic -- since there also seems to be plenty of evidence that many things are the same now as they were at the very beginning of time. But, perhaps you mean the changes driven by a law like "survival of the fittest". You can find evidence on both sides of this idea of evolution, and perhaps it turns out to be largely correct. but my personal belief is that it is not the best way to structure a law of nature. I suspect it is a manifestation of a more fundamental model of biological change caused by random mutations, driven by physical interactions at the molecular (or submolecular) level. But even these models run into difficulties when extended to large complex systems, such as organisms, groups of organisms, or interactions among groups of organisms. The roles of instinct and choice in these models are important, and actually not well understood by the researchers. (For example, consider what you would predict for the future evolution of humans. Is it really about maximizing survival rates of superior subgroups? Perhaps not.)
It seems odd to disparage someone because they do not accept your assumptions. (And Monster's comments, although phrased as "questions", are full of assumptions). Perhaps it is rooted in an elitist attitude that your books are better than another person's books.
Even so, A good place to start is to define what you mean by "evolution". The most general idea of evolution is simply "change". This in itself is a complex topic -- since there also seems to be plenty of evidence that many things are the same now as they were at the very beginning of time. But, perhaps you mean the changes driven by a law like "survival of the fittest". You can find evidence on both sides of this idea of evolution, and perhaps it turns out to be largely correct. but my personal belief is that it is not the best way to structure a law of nature. I suspect it is a manifestation of a more fundamental model of biological change caused by random mutations, driven by physical interactions at the molecular (or submolecular) level. But even these models run into difficulties when extended to large complex systems, such as organisms, groups of organisms, or interactions among groups of organisms. The roles of instinct and choice in these models are important, and actually not well understood by the researchers. (For example, consider what you would predict for the future evolution of humans. Is it really about maximizing survival rates of superior subgroups? Perhaps not.)
JP1119 · 36-40, M
It's true, scientists don't know absolutely everything about how evolution works, some questions they can't answer yet; however, we have some positive evidence to support the theory of evolution, and it's the best theory we have right now. On the other hand, there is no positive evidence to support the theory of creationism or intelligent design. The creationists' arguments are just to point out that there are still some things we don't yet know about evolution.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@kajira
Wow sorry. I didn't see this post.
Of course there must be sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. And there certainly appears to be.
We can look at the fossil record and see a progression of apes, to human-like apes to humans.
We can look at current human anatomy and see how it can be explained by common decent better than by special creation.
What i find most accessible and compelling is the genetic evidence. Since we've recently mapped the human genome, we can see interesting things like human chromosome 2. As you probably know, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while all other great apes have 24. So given common decent, we would expect humans to also have 24. So where did that missing pair go?
Turns out it can be found at human chromosome 2: a fusion of two pairs of chromosomes with telomeres located in the center.
A second example i find quite compelling is that of retro viral DNA. Inactive junk DNA that has been left over in our genome from when a virus infects a reproductive cell. These instances of retro viral genetic material occur in our genome in the same spots that they occur in say, the chimpanzee genome.
A compelling argument for common decent that is not easily explained by a creation model.
So you see, there certainly IS good evidence for evolution. Enough to reject the null hypothesis. I haven't disparaged anyone for not accepting my assumptions. I've challenged them to present evidence which they believe supports their position.
I don't think "my books are better than another person's books". I think my evidence is better than another person's evidence.
Wow sorry. I didn't see this post.
Of course there must be sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. And there certainly appears to be.
We can look at the fossil record and see a progression of apes, to human-like apes to humans.
We can look at current human anatomy and see how it can be explained by common decent better than by special creation.
What i find most accessible and compelling is the genetic evidence. Since we've recently mapped the human genome, we can see interesting things like human chromosome 2. As you probably know, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while all other great apes have 24. So given common decent, we would expect humans to also have 24. So where did that missing pair go?
Turns out it can be found at human chromosome 2: a fusion of two pairs of chromosomes with telomeres located in the center.
A second example i find quite compelling is that of retro viral DNA. Inactive junk DNA that has been left over in our genome from when a virus infects a reproductive cell. These instances of retro viral genetic material occur in our genome in the same spots that they occur in say, the chimpanzee genome.
A compelling argument for common decent that is not easily explained by a creation model.
So you see, there certainly IS good evidence for evolution. Enough to reject the null hypothesis. I haven't disparaged anyone for not accepting my assumptions. I've challenged them to present evidence which they believe supports their position.
I don't think "my books are better than another person's books". I think my evidence is better than another person's evidence.