Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Batfastard

Evolution - really?

923 posts in this topic

Now before I start I am in no way a 'Creationist', but neither do I hold the belief that we evolved from primates.

The evolution theory is now being taught in most schools as accepted fact, and that to me is a tad worrying - where is the evidence?

DNA evidence I hear people shout, now the way I see it Scientists who believe in evolution manipulate the data to support evolution, when in reality, DNA data support the obvious and distinctive categorization of life that is commonly observed in the fossil record and in existing life forms. There is, in fact, a clear demarcation between each created kind (humans, chimps, mice, chickens, dogs, etc.), and there is no blending together or observed transition from one kind of animal to another. All created kinds exhibit a certain amount of genetic variability within their grouping while still maintaining specific genetic boundaries. In other words, one kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record or in observations of living organisms.

Another thing is that surely for the human species to evolve from a primate then this process must have taken millions of years, and there would be varying degrees of intertwining between the species over this long period of time, but as yet scientists cannot show one set of fossilised remains showing this primate/human crossover species, a species that must have lived and evolved over many millions of years.

If we evolved from primates in a single, linear progression, as is claimed by evolutionists the world over, why is it that it would appear that there were a minimum of FOUR seperate hominids all co-existing in Africa approximately 2 million years ago?

Now I am not saying I know what the alternative theory is, but I am just uncomfortable with my children being taught something as fact, when it appears that this is nothing more than guesswork.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you post this in this section? If your objection to evolutionary theory is based on evidence alone (you didn't mention religion) then why not put it in the science section?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now before I start I am in no way a 'Creationist', but neither do I hold the belief that we evolved from primates.

The evolution theory is now being taught in most schools as accepted fact, and that to me is a tad worrying - where is the evidence?

DNA evidence I hear people shout, now the way I see it Scientists who believe in evolution manipulate the data to support evolution, when in reality, DNA data support the obvious and distinctive categorization of life that is commonly observed in the fossil record and in existing life forms. There is, in fact, a clear demarcation between each created kind (humans, chimps, mice, chickens, dogs, etc.), and there is no blending together or observed transition from one kind of animal to another. All created kinds exhibit a certain amount of genetic variability within their grouping while still maintaining specific genetic boundaries. In other words, one kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record or in observations of living organisms.

Another thing is that surely for the human species to evolve from a primate then this process must have taken millions of years, and there would be varying degrees of intertwining between the species over this long period of time, but as yet scientists cannot show one set of fossilised remains showing this primate/human crossover species, a species that must have lived and evolved over many millions of years.

If we evolved from primates in a single, linear progression, as is claimed by evolutionists the world over, why is it that it would appear that there were a minimum of FOUR seperate hominids all co-existing in Africa approximately 2 million years ago?

Now I am not saying I know what the alternative theory is, but I am just uncomfortable with my children being taught something as fact, when it appears that this is nothing more than guesswork.

It's being taught as fact because it is one.

There are hundreds of studies that make it more than just guesswork.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now before I start I am in no way a 'Creationist', but neither do I hold the belief that we evolved from primates.

The evolution theory is now being taught in most schools as accepted fact, and that to me is a tad worrying - where is the evidence?

DNA evidence I hear people shout, now the way I see it Scientists who believe in evolution manipulate the data to support evolution, when in reality, DNA data support the obvious and distinctive categorization of life that is commonly observed in the fossil record and in existing life forms. There is, in fact, a clear demarcation between each created kind (humans, chimps, mice, chickens, dogs, etc.), and there is no blending together or observed transition from one kind of animal to another. All created kinds exhibit a certain amount of genetic variability within their grouping while still maintaining specific genetic boundaries. In other words, one kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record or in observations of living organisms.

Another thing is that surely for the human species to evolve from a primate then this process must have taken millions of years, and there would be varying degrees of intertwining between the species over this long period of time, but as yet scientists cannot show one set of fossilised remains showing this primate/human crossover species, a species that must have lived and evolved over many millions of years.

If we evolved from primates in a single, linear progression, as is claimed by evolutionists the world over, why is it that it would appear that there were a minimum of FOUR seperate hominids all co-existing in Africa approximately 2 million years ago?

Now I am not saying I know what the alternative theory is, but I am just uncomfortable with my children being taught something as fact, when it appears that this is nothing more than guesswork.

Clearly you need to go back and relearn evolution, because NOTHING you've said above is correct.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you need to go back and relearn evolution, because NOTHING you've said above is correct.

Feel free to elaborate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another thing is that surely for the human species to evolve from a primate then this process must have taken millions of years, and there would be varying degrees of intertwining between the species over this long period of time, but as yet scientists cannot show one set of fossilised remains showing this primate/human crossover species, a species that must have lived and evolved over many millions of years.

Fossilization is a rare occurance. Not everything that has lived has been fossilized because it takes very specific circumstances at point of death for that to happen. The "missing links" could have fossilized, but more likely they died and decayed. The vast majority of life that has existed on earth as decayed back to basic elements with no evidence left behind.

Also, we haven't dug up every inch of the earth's surface. We have cities, roads, lakes, massive parking lots and shopping complexes that have been in place for anywhere from 10 to 50 years. What could be below metropolitan areas?

If we evolved from primates in a single, linear progression, as is claimed by evolutionists the world over, why is it that it would appear that there were a minimum of FOUR seperate hominids all co-existing in Africa approximately 2 million years ago?

When you say it is claimed by "evolutionists" are you talking about the average Joe who talks about evolution or the scientists who study it? If you're talking about the scientists then you've not understood what they have said. From a scientific standpoint it makes more sense that there were multiple "types" of hominids because different groups of apes would have evolved differently, and could have done so concurrently.

The end result would have been a combination of the less adaptable strains dying out and the more adaptable suriving and likely intermingling to ultimately become us. And there is quite a lot of variety in us, still today.

Now I am not saying I know what the alternative theory is, but I am just uncomfortable with my children being taught something as fact, when it appears that this is nothing more than guesswork.

Perhaps if it is taught in schools, the next generation will be better informed and able to discern the difference between the unconfirmed theories about evolution and the processes which have been observed and confirmed. Lack of knowledge about this is the number one reason people "don't believe" in evolution.

Edited by karmakazi
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother...first off...we ARE primates, second - you've been given DNA evidence, yet you refuse to believe it.

We did not evolve in a single, linear line (where did you EVER hear that?)...the tree has many branches.

And lastly..there IS no "missing link". There lots of links....nobody's ever gonna find a fossil labeled "MISSING LINK"...there are pleny of what you call "crossover" species. You're looking for one to fill the gap between ape and man. Doesnt work that way. WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES. Common ancestor. Go back to school.

DNA evidence also links us to mice, chickens, pigs dogs and even a banana.

With regards to your 'pleny' (sic) of crossover species - care to name them or would that detract from your condescending reply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA evidence also links us to mice, chickens, pigs dogs and even a banana.

With regards to your 'pleny' (sic) of crossover species - care to name them or would that detract from your condescending reply?

We ARE linked to mice chicken pigs dogs banana...thats the whole POINT

start here:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution

Off to work for me, but dont worry. There will be others who make the point better than I.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no bloody thing as a transition species! All species are in transition and slowly drifting from their current state of being. It's like the Earth slowly rotating, we know it rotates but you can't feel the darn thing or else we'd all be vomiting more then after all those vodka martini's I had.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batfastard, I think you are just disagreeing to disagree. I can only hope your kids are smarter and will see the fallacy.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I think it's about time you get this peer reviewed! You're going to get a nobel prize for out-smarting all of those scientists.. all of that research.. ahhh..

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA evidence also links us to mice, chickens, pigs dogs and even a banana.

With regards to your 'pleny' (sic) of crossover species - care to name them or would that detract from your condescending reply?

If you are referring to transitional fossils, here is a tenative list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batfastard, I think you are just disagreeing to disagree. I can only hope your kids are smarter and will see the fallacy.

Unfortunately kids learn most from their parents. Whatever this person does believe will no doubt be passed down.

Then in a few years they will start their own anti-evolution thread. ;)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very simply, the theory of evolution makes much more sense than any other theory as to how the Earth has such varied species. It is obvious that species rise and fall, without evolution there would be a set number of species on Earth, which would have been wiped out during previous extinction events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now before I start I am in no way a 'Creationist', but neither do I hold the belief that we evolved from primates.

The evolution theory is now being taught in most schools as accepted fact, and that to me is a tad worrying - where is the evidence?

First off, saying "belief in evolution" is meaningless. About as meaningless as saying "belief in gravity". It has nothing to do with belief. You either understand evolution or you don't.

There is more evidence for evolution than almost any other area of science. Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth for a comprehensive run through of the mountain of evidence we have.

DNA evidence I hear people shout, now the way I see it Scientists who believe in evolution manipulate the data to support evolution, when in reality, DNA data support the obvious and distinctive categorization of life that is commonly observed in the fossil record and in existing life forms. There is, in fact, a clear demarcation between each created kind (humans, chimps, mice, chickens, dogs, etc.), and there is no blending together or observed transition from one kind of animal to another.

You obviously don't understand how genetics works. All living things have a genetic sequence, represented by a string of letters. Over 95% of the genetic sequences of humans and chimps are in exactly the same order. This can only have happened if we shared a common ancestor in the past.

All created kinds exhibit a certain amount of genetic variability within their grouping while still maintaining specific genetic boundaries. In other words, one kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record or in observations of living organisms.

For someone who claims not to be a creationist, you sure as hell sound like you've been reading their websites.

Another thing is that surely for the human species to evolve from a primate then this process must have taken millions of years, and there would be varying degrees of intertwining between the species over this long period of time, but as yet scientists cannot show one set of fossilised remains showing this primate/human crossover species, a species that must have lived and evolved over many millions of years.

They can show this, and they have. Ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

If we evolved from primates in a single, linear progression, as is claimed by evolutionists the world over, why is it that it would appear that there were a minimum of FOUR seperate hominids all co-existing in Africa approximately 2 million years ago?

Because evolution isn't a straight line, its a many-branched tree. All you're showing here is that you haven't bothered doing any actual research.

Now I am not saying I know what the alternative theory is, but I am just uncomfortable with my children being taught something as fact, when it appears that this is nothing more than guesswork.

And here we go. You really haven't done your homework have you? Evolution is about as far as science can possibly get from guesswork.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I've seen the evidence, you can believe or not believe in gravity, how else does Wile E. Coyote stay up in the air until he looks down? That's evidence! Right?

Each fossil that's discovered is a static image of one animal out of a bajillionmillion (that's a number, right?) that have come and gone. I read somewhere that 99% of all species that existed are extinct. The species we have today are their shadows, kinda. They're what has been building up and surviving, and they'll pass on into the dark of history, some will never be known by the future if we lose records or something like that. Imagine in a million years, if we become a star faring civilization. We'll fragment into a thousand species ourselves, and all them may never know of dinosaurs.

Edited by Hasina
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe you should go back to school, i dont think you were paying much attention for some reason.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to dust this off again...yeah, it's in German, just follow the lines.

paleoweb-evolution-poster.jpg

Nibs

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to pile on to the negative feedback you've already been given, that isn't my intentions here.. but by the looks of it you're inferring a view of "evolution" that can be picked up by viewing the common "ape to human" images (see below [1]) rather than actually having tried to understand what the evidence tells us. The major indication of this is you're viewing the process as liner, i.e one singular animal that constantly morphs into 'another' one. Animals are able to change in that sense, but evolution in the sense you're "arguing" against doesn't actually state a liner process is how new species arise. Where you've got "as evolutionists all around the world state" from, I have absolutely no idea.

[1] http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/weirdscience/evolution-1.jpg

Others have already point out your errors so I won't do the same, but I suggest checking out these websites which should answer any of your further questions:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now before I start I am in no way a 'Creationist', but neither do I hold the belief that we evolved from primates.

The evolution theory is now being taught in most schools as accepted fact, and that to me is a tad worrying - where is the evidence?

DNA evidence I hear people shout, now the way I see it Scientists who believe in evolution manipulate the data to support evolution, when in reality, DNA data support the obvious and distinctive categorization of life that is commonly observed in the fossil record and in existing life forms. There is, in fact, a clear demarcation between each created kind (humans, chimps, mice, chickens, dogs, etc.), and there is no blending together or observed transition from one kind of animal to another. All created kinds exhibit a certain amount of genetic variability within their grouping while still maintaining specific genetic boundaries. In other words, one kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record or in observations of living organisms.

Another thing is that surely for the human species to evolve from a primate then this process must have taken millions of years, and there would be varying degrees of intertwining between the species over this long period of time, but as yet scientists cannot show one set of fossilised remains showing this primate/human crossover species, a species that must have lived and evolved over many millions of years.

If we evolved from primates in a single, linear progression, as is claimed by evolutionists the world over, why is it that it would appear that there were a minimum of FOUR seperate hominids all co-existing in Africa approximately 2 million years ago?

Now I am not saying I know what the alternative theory is, but I am just uncomfortable with my children being taught something as fact, when it appears that this is nothing more than guesswork.

Well, there are a lot of things wrong with your ideas. The first one is that nothing in science is taught as a fact except what we can observe. So, evolution the natural phenomenon where allele frequencies change over time in a population is taught as a fact because it is an observable fact. The evolutionary theories, some of which you have a problem with, are not taught as a fact, but the most likely explanation of the phenomenon.

Another thing that you are not understanding is that the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules is an observable natural phenomenon and lends great proof to the theory of evolution. If DNA/RNA molecules did not evolve in a very similar way as the theory of evolution predicts, then DNA fingerprinting and paternity tests would be completely inaccurate. Although a lot of experimentation begins with guess work, it is no longer needed when testing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is one of the most evidenced theories in all of science, has such strong predictions, and is so reliably accurate that it is used in almost every industry today in one way or another.

The last thing is that all of these ideas of cross-over species or transitional species is a misunderstanding. Every species is in transition at every single point in time.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... looks like you all got to it before I could.

If I ever have any children I will happily teach them evolution.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batfastard, you also think the earth is flat?

Any sailor, thousands of years ago, could have told you that was wrong. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a globe (they even calculated the circumference of the earth, and made only a minor error), but no, it took us another 1600 (?) years to agree with what anyone could have known if they had just accepted the proof.

--

You might want to start with Googling "atavism".

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/atavism.htm

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a load of crap that was good science back in the day, but now its' pretty much disproven. Creation is the only possible way we could have gotten here, anyone who says otherwise just dosen't want to admit that they owe their life to God. But hey it's alright, God is good enough that he allows us to make our own decisions even if they are the wrong ones, however one day we all have to die and when we do we will stand before Him and have to make an account for our lives. I don't want to be the guy who gets there and says ahh sorry God, I would have believed in you if it was not for all these fake bones people keep putting forward as reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a load of crap that was good science back in the day, but now its' pretty much disproven. Creation is the only possible way we could have gotten here, anyone who says otherwise just dosen't want to admit that they owe their life to God. But hey it's alright, God is good enough that he allows us to make our own decisions even if they are the wrong ones, however one day we all have to die and when we do we will stand before Him and have to make an account for our lives. I don't want to be the guy who gets there and says ahh sorry God, I would have believed in you if it was not for all these fake bones people keep putting forward as reality.

You're just wrong on so many levels. Evolution has never been disproven.

Now I expect you to apologize to those of us that aren't scientifically illiterate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.