Why don't you accept the theory of evolution? [Spirituality & Religion]

[quote], the more we understand evolution, the less humans fit with it,[/quote]

Source? Example?

@UnparalleledMonster: I don't waste my time citing sources on SW anymore. Besides, this is about thinking, not established knowledge. You can't cite what isn't known.

As for examples.. Losing our fur, why we suffer sunburns and skin cancer, why our sleep rhythms are so easily altered from a 24 hour clock, why our vocal chords developed so much further than anything else's, how our brains came to be as they are, and how we evolved in such a shorter time than everything else. There are many, many more.

@Sicarium:

[quote]As for examples.. Losing our fur, why we suffer sunburns...[/quote]

I'm sorry, but can you elaborate on how any of these indicate that humans don't fit evolution theory?
Just pick a few of those examples and explain.

@UnparalleledMonster: We lost our fur. There is no known reason for it, but, presumably, those with less fur were at an advantage at the time. That is the basis of evolution. Ok, we'll go with that. But it opened us up to sunburns and skin cancer that fur would've protected us from. That is a contradiction that evolution cannot explain. Unless we're missing a significant piece of the puzzle, we should not have lost our fur. But we obviously did.

The shrew, a common field mouse, has remained mostly unchanged for the last 65 million years. The ostrich, rhea, and emu have been mostly unchanged for 250 million years, despite being separated on different parts of the planet. Plankton, sharks, even dinosaurs...take your pick, evolution is a very long and very slow process for the most part. And yet, the earliest known point of divergence between what would become humans and apes was 2 million years ago. Compared to other species, humans are on a vastly accelerated evolutionary timeline and we do not know why.

@Sicarium:

[quote]That is a contradiction that evolution cannot explain[/quote]

Not even a little bit.
All that means is that whatever adaptive advantage we gained from lack of fur was not outweighed by that harm. This is particularly obvious if you stop to consider the fact that cancer typically takes a while to develop and even longer to become fatal. That means that the genes have already been passed on, maybe several times before this disadvantage even manifests itself.

[quote]The shrew, a common field mouse, has remained mostly unchanged...[/quote]

lol well let's not include dinosaurs because that's like saying "mammals". Dinosaurs changed VERY much.
As for rapid human evolution, it doesn't necessarily contradict evolution theory. After all, while evolution is a consensus among scientists there is much discussion about its nature, including how fast it can happen.

Moving on to one of your other examples (and excuse me for picking low-hanging fruit), why would our vocal chords develop such complexity? ( and i wouldn't say "so much further than anything else" because as you know there are a number of birds capable of speech).
Well the obvious answer is that vocal communication gave us an advantage. We are a social animal and complex vocals allowed us to achieve higher levels of cooperation and coordination. So of course that part of our anatomy developed.
You might as well ask why a peacock's tail developed so much more than any other species.

[quote]All that means is that whatever adaptive advantage we gained from lack of fur was not outweighed by that harm. This is particularly obvious if you stop to consider the fact that cancer typically takes a while to develop and even loner to become fatal. That means that the genes have already been passed on, maybe several times before this disadvantage even manifests itself.
[/quote]

Ok then, list the greater advantages. The disadvantages, and I only listed two, are easy to find. If there's no contradiction, then explain the advantages that disprove the contradiction.

[quote]lol well let's not include dinosaurs because that's like saying "mammals". Dinosaurs changed VERY much.[/quote] I threw dinosaurs in, you just left it out of the quote. Speaking of dinosaurs, they evolved over 200 million years or so (depends on what you classify as the first "dinosaur"). Humans, 2 million. The dinosaurs demonstrate the point you're trying to dismiss.

[quote]Well the obvious answer is that vocal communication gave us an advantage. We are a social animal and complex vocals allowed us to achieve higher levels of cooperation and coordination. So of course that part of our anatomy developed.[/quote]

Obviously. And you think humans are the only species to communicate vocally? Dogs, cats, hyenas...hundreds of others all do. A pack of hyenas will circle a lion. One behind the lion will cackle to get the lion's attention. When the lion turns, hyenas from the rear will attack the lion's hind quarter. Wouldn't that be more effective with speech? Obviously it would. Pick your species, speech would be more effective over their current vocal means of communication. Why did we develop vocal chords capable of speech over the growls, cackles, and roars of other species? Evolution does not have an answer for that.

As for your birds, I hope you can recognize the difference between a species mimicking and a species developing speech and inherently using it.

[quote]You might as well ask why a peacock's tail developed so much more than any other species.[/quote]

That's a legitimate question. Science doesn't shield you from questions, even questions you don't think are worth answering. Science is about asking questions. That includes evolution. Evolution is not immune to questions just because you think we know all we need to know or because you want to use it as a bludgeon on people you disagree with. If you really believe in science, you want questions. You want people poking holes in our current understanding. That is how science moves forward and how we improve through science.

@Sicarium:

[quote]Ok then, list the greater advantages[/quote]

Ignoring the fact that this is an argument from ignorance (if the advantages aren't known to you then there aren't any and so it contradicts evolution) it's pretty easy to identify at least a couple potential advantages right off the bat.
1) it could mean fewer parasites. Incidentally this is the exact reason why shaving armpits became popular in some cultures.
2) losing a fur covering would allow for much more efficient heat dissipation. For a highly active animal (humans as you know are built for endurance) this could offer a crucial advantage.

[quote]The dinosaurs demonstrate the point you're trying to dismiss. [/quote]

No. Again, saying "dinosaur" is not the same as saying "human"or even "hominid". Now if you wanted to focus down to something like the tyrannosauridae then obviously the time involved becomes a lot smaller.
But this is really irrelevant, as is the point about some animals remaining relatively unchanged. All this means is that for their niche these animals were superbly adapted so they had little selective pressure. So human ancestors had more pressure to change. Not exactly a condemnation of evolution theory.

[quote] Evolution does not have an answer for that.[/quote]

I don't want to be rude, but i'm stating to question your grasp of evolution theory. What leads you to believe that if one trait is advantageous, all organisms should possess it? That if other organisms who vocalize didn't evolve complex speech then evolution can't explain it?

The answer to your question about vocal development was obvious. You actually haven't disputed that, only questioned why other animals didn't evolve the ability to the same degree.
You might ass well ask why wolves don't have venom since it is clearly the more effective hunting tool. One bite, wait for the animal to fall. Less energy expenditure, less risk. But wolves aren't venomous and evolution can't explain that. Right?

Or do you understand that one organism does not necessarily evolve the same traits as another, even if they are better?

[quote]As for your birds, I hope you can recognize the difference between a species mimicking and a species developing speech and inherently using it.[/quote]

Obviously. I wasn't implying that birds could use speech in the same way humans do. I was pointing out that they are capable of making the same complex sounds we do and that therefore our vocal chords are not "so much further than anything else".

[quote] That is how science moves forward and how we improve through science.[/quote]

Of course. But you missed the point. I wasn't being dismissive of the question, i was trying to illustrate the fact that an organism displaying a trait more highly developed than another organism is in no way contradictory to evolution.

[quote]Ignoring the fact that this is an argument from ignorance (if the advantages aren't known to you then there aren't any and so it contradicts evolution) it's pretty easy to identify at least a couple potential advantages right off the bat.[/quote]

Nonsense. You made the claim that the contradiction was easily refuted. So do it. Don't hide behind logical fallacies when you introduced the fallacy.

[quote]1) it could mean fewer parasites. Incidentally this is the exact reason why shaving armpits became popular in some cultures.[/quote]

That is speculation. Speculation does not trump observed data. However, it should be obvious that parasites would be an issue regardless of whether we have fur or not.

[quote]2) losing a fur covering would allow for much more efficient heat dissipation. For a highly active animal (humans as you know are built for endurance) this could offer a crucial advantage.[/quote]

And yet we immediately began wearing animal furs and skins. So we lost our fur for heat dissipation and then resorted to wearing the fur of other species because we were cold. You just introduced another contradiction.

[quote]No. Again, saying "dinosaur" is not the same as saying "human"or even "hominid". Now if you wanted to focus down to something like the tyrannosauridae then obviously the time involved becomes a lot smaller.
But this is really irrelevant, as is the point about some animals remaining relatively unchanged. All this means is that for their niche these animals were superbly adapted so they had little selective pressure. So human ancestors had more pressure to change. Not exactly a condemnation of evolution theory.[/quote]

You're cherry picking what I said, while ignoring the rest of my examples, to avoid the larger point. You can pick whatever species you want. Google your own examples if you don't like mine. But stop making assumptions just so you have something to argue. And when did I condemn evolutionary theory? I didn't. That's your own limited thinking. One can question without condemning. Again, that is the basis of science. Questioning is fundamental, even if you cannot accept it.

So dinosaurs evolved over 200 million years or so. The earliest known hominid was 6 million years ago. 6 million years is a far shorter period than 200 million. You cannot argue that humans, and hominids in general, have evolved faster than the dinosaurs did. You can pretend it doesn't matter or you can ask why. I'm asking why. You're pretending it doesn't matter. Again, the very example you're trying to tear apart is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

[quote]I don't want to be rude...[/quote]

Yes you do.

[quote]...but i'm stating to question your grasp of evolution theory.[/quote]

At least you're finally willing to question something. And I'm not particularly concerned with what you think I grasp or don't grasp. Drop the undeserved self-superiority.

[quote]What leads you to believe that if one trait is advantageous, all organisms should possess it? That if other organisms who vocalize didn't evolve complex speech then evolution can't explain it?[/quote]

Did I say all organisms? Nope. Now, back to relevancy.

On a side note, for someone who whines about logical fallacies (when you introduce them), you sure do use a lot of logical fallacies.

[quote]Or do you understand that one organism does not necessarily evolve the same traits as another, even if they are better?[/quote]

Evolution isn't about evolving the same traits. Evolution is about weeding out current traits. A species will have an available pool of traits. The individuals with the "fittest" traits for their environment will tend to be more successful, on the whole. They'll gather or hunt more food; they'll live longer, healthier lives; they'll procreate more. All of that means they will be more likely to pass on their traits. Over time, the "stronger" traits will thrive while the "weaker" traits are left behind and weeded out of the overall pool. Quotes because it's all relevant to the current environment. There is no set goal of uniformity in evolution. Evolution isn't about evolving "the same traits." It is about the adaptation of an existing pool of traits to a species' environment.

[quote]Obviously.[/quote]

Then let it go and stop needlessly arguing over every single point.

Two things are abundantly obvious. 1) The person you were originally quoting was absolutely right, but you couldn't admit that. 2) You're more interested in arguing, even when you don't know what you're arguing about, with, or for, than having an actual discussion. You should open your mind more. There is far more to evolution than you're even beginning to touch on. But you're denying yourself the opportunity to even see more.

Whether you can accept it or not, evolution cannot explain why humans have reached the point we have. That should not be, and is not, a controversial statement. Fundamentally, our understanding of evolution is not complete. There are things we are missing, both in example and thought. This should be obvious to any rational person with even a modicum of understanding. So I'm seriously trying to figure out what you're arguing here. If you believe we have a complete, hard map of evolution, you are wrong. If you believe evolution currently has the answer to every question about every species, you are wrong. Regardless of those, you have consistently demonstrated a belief that questioning is somehow the same as refuting or denying, and, again, you are wrong.

@Sicarium:

[quote]. Don't hide behind logical fallacies[/quote]

Sorry, dude. I know how keen you are on calling fallacies out when you see them. Practice what you preach. You made the argument that since you didn't know of an advantage for losing fur that it was contradictory to evolution.
You formed a conclusion based on your lack of knowledge.
If that's not an argument from ignorance i don't know what is

[quote]That is speculation. Speculation does not trump observed data. However, it should be obvious that parasites would be an issue regardless of whether we have fur or not[/quote]

...what am i even reading here? Yes it's speculation. And yes parasites are still an issue even without fur. But less of one. That's called a se-lect-tive ad-van-tage. lol

[quote]You just introduced another contradiction. [/quote]

Only in your mind.
For starters i'd like to see the observed data you're so keen on that shows we "immediately began wearing animal furs". Seems like speculation lol. But i'm just fucking with you there.
Secondly, many cultures still do not wear clothes, or very little clothing in hot climates. Finally, clothing, unlike fur, can be altered, removed or put back on depending on the current need.
I'm getting a bit tired of pointing out the blindingly obvious answers to your "contradictions".
You're really just being contrarian now because your pride won't allow you to admit when you're wrong.


[quote]Evolution isn't about evolving the same traits[/quote]

...yes. I know. Which is why i found it confusing that you thought the fact that wolves haven't evolved the same vocal complexity as humans was in some way contradictory to evolution theory.
Kinda feel like you just made my point for me.


Aaaaand the rest appears to be a long-winded admonition of my motivation and personal integrity.
I guess that concludes the part of the discussion where you actually debate the topic.

Let's review:

You stated that " the more we understand evolution, the less humans fit with it, at least based on our current understanding."

I asked for examples.
You provided a number of "contradictions" that could be explained with even a layman's understanding of adaptation given a few minutes actually considering an answer instead of deciding there was none.

You made a blatant argument from ignorance and i showed it for what it was: poorly thought out and intellectually dishonest.


Anyway, since you appear to have retreated to your ivory tower of self-deluded moral and intellectual superiority, should i assume this discussion has come to an end?

@UnparalleledMonster: [quote]Sorry, dude. I know how keen you are on calling fallacies out when you see them. Practice what you preach. You made the argument that since you didn't know of an advantage for losing fur that it was contradictory to evolution.
You formed a conclusion based on your lack of knowledge.
If that's not an argument from ignorance i don't know what is[/quote]

False. I made the argument that if [b]you[/b] couldn't list the advantages then [b]you[/b] couldn't simply proclaim there was no contradiction. Try reading, it works wonders.

[quote]...what am i even reading here? Yes it's speculation. And yes parasites are still an issue even without fur. But less of one. That's called a se-lect-tive ad-van-tage. lol[/quote]

More speculation and another assumption, those do not equal facts. Try again.

[quote]For starters i'd like to see the observed data you're so keen on that shows we "immediately began wearing animal furs". Seems like speculation lol. But i'm just fucking with you there.[/quote]

Not my problem if you can't grasp the concept of relative time.

[quote]...yes. I know. Which is why i found it confusing that you thought the fact that wolves haven't evolved the same vocal complexity as humans was in some way contradictory to evolution theory.[/quote]

Then why did you say it was? Seriously, what is it you are trying to argue here?

[quote]Aaaaand the rest appears to be a long-winded admonition of my motivation and personal integrity.
I guess that concludes the part of the discussion where you actually debate the topic.[/quote]

Meaningless whining.

[quote]Let's review:

You stated that " the more we understand evolution, the less humans fit with it, at least based on our current understanding."

I asked for examples.
You provided a number of "contradictions" that could be explained with even a layman's understanding of adaptation given a few minutes actually considering an answer instead of deciding there was none.

You made a blatant argument from ignorance and i showed it for what it was: poorly thought out and intellectually dishonest.[/quote]

False. I made a true statement. You couldn't comprehend the statement so you asked for examples. I gave you a handful. You couldn't tolerate the idea of someone knowing more than you, so you argued without ever reaching a valid point. Then you started using logical fallacies and lying about comments to hide your own ignorance. Then, in one last, desperate attempt at salvaging yourself, you projected your idiocy on to me.

[quote]Anyway, since you appear to have retreated to your ivory tower of self-deluded moral and intellectual superiority, should i assume this discussion has come to an end?
[/quote]

"What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

On a serious note, stop trying to convince yourself that you're right on topics you have virtually no understanding of and you just might learn something. Also, try deciding ahead of time what you're going to argue, you might actually get to a point that way.

@Sicarium:

Not going to pretend i read that wall of text. I saw you trying to pretend you hadn't made an argument from ignorance (ridiculous considering how often you stated that it WAS a contradiction or that "evolution can't explain that" LOL) and then i skipped to the end where you're accusing me of the very same crime of which you are guilty in this thread.


Every "contradiction" you presented i refuted.
Your contention that humans do not fit evolution theory has no legs. Which of course you know. A fact apparent by your complete abandonment of debating the issue in favor of attacking my character.

You're proud and you're intellectually dishonest and hypocritical and just AMAZINGLY blind to it all.
It's really quite hilarious.😂

It's been fun, but i hope you'll learn from this. If you can't debate the facts (As you couldn't here) don't feel the need to attack the person.
It's ok to admit you're wrong or that you can't dispute the points (and you couldn't) but that you still disagree.

You'll get there.
But please don't bother to respond to this post if all you're going to do is try to save face.

Catch you next time, champ😉👍