Evolutionary scientists say no such thing. Millions of years ago humans shared a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. The species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
No "evolutionist"(whatever that is) has EVER stated, claimed, indicated, or even thought that human evolved from apes....you obviously do not understand a great many things about the theory you so revile.
Well then tell us what it is? Or don't you actually know. And while you are educating the rest of us ignoramuses go ahead and give us your alternative to evolution theory. Thought you wouldn't.
I thought much the same. I'm not sure as to why those on this thread who reject the theory of evolution (which is not in itself completely irrational) have the same responses. Part of it might be that if they had to state their own theory and/or belief, the next logical follow up would be for them to have to provide evidence for that claim. So instead, they dodge the issue altogether with statements such as "I do not have a theory", "Why do I need to have a theory?" or "I do not care". These were the same avoidance tactics used by those such as ChemEngineer and others earlier on this thread. It makes sense for the claimant to be the one who has to provide proof. But by avoiding our questions about what they think is the explaination for human origin with indirect answers, the "game" is easily rigged in their favor. I made a thread asking for alternative theories, and needless to say, many who rejected the theory of evolution here did not respond. To quote ChemEngineer on page 13: "THE solution is this: You keep believing in Darwinian evolution. Others can have their beliefs, sort of like there are Catholics and there are Baptists and there are Jews. To each his own. Stop trying to shove YOUR insistence on having SOME "theory" down other people's throats. We reject yours and will not change. PERIOD. Sometimes we share, between ourselves, arguments for OUR opinions. We have already heard and read yours since junior high school. They were bad then, but we did not have the analytical capabilities and maturity to process those arguments in the same fashion that we now have." In other words, we shouldn't even have other theories made. That way, people can believe whatever they want without those beliefs being subject to reality. The same could be said about evolution to a degree. But unlike "Catholics, Baptists, and Jews" (note ChemEngineer's examples might suggest Abrahamic bias) scientists who study the theory of evolution at least try examining evidence rather than assume something is true because they feel it is. So if the "anti-evolutionists" here were truly interested in science as they claim, they would propose theories of their own and try to find evidence to support their claim. Not merely focus on disproving another's theory. Also, it might even be possible that nothing short of binding an "anti-evolutionist" who refuses to answer to a chair and removing their finger nails or talking about harming their family members if they don't provide a theory, (or directly answer our questions) will get them to say anything. I think the solution is actually this. From this point on, if the person doesn't even say what they think might be the explaination for human origin, or describe in specific detail what form of evidence will satisfy them, just ignore the comment. If any of them are truly "trolling", the tactic could be to keep us engaged and waste our time.
I disagree, they don't have to put forward an alternative theory to reject the Theory of Evolution however... 1. If they reject the evidence for the Theory of Evolution then they should justify rejecting the evidence and not just claim that the evidence does not meet their irrational expectations. 2. If they do put forward an alternative then they should justify it or have it rejected and not just claim, 'same evidence, different conclusion'. 3. Putting forward an alternative and then claiming it is as likely as the Theory of Evolution on the basis that, 'we don't know what we don't know' is not science it is special pleading from ignorance. Science works on the basis that reality exists and that we can model it and make predictions from those models. If you reject those assumptions and play games with them philosophically then you are not being scientific you are being metaphysical at best. At the end of the day, you are always going to have someone who thinks that they can wedge religion into it through philosophy and ignorance but, the underlying arguments always look the same, it's just being able to spot where it's going usually.
You're actually right William Rea. There is no need for an alternative theory. I definately see your point on "statement 1". Though for 2 and 3, many, even some here, have claimed other things such as theistic creation stories. But I have yet to see any of them analyze those theories thoroughly. Let alone respond to me when asked why they don't.
Likely everyone here understands the unspoken reality of Evolution deniers. These people, at their core, are religious minded individuals that simply cannot both believe in Evolution and Creation at the same time. Yet they have no possible explanation as to "How" such a thing occurred beyond the "God Did It" line and are embarrassed to say it out loud. Thus are they diminished into denial of well documented and extremely well defined data through extremely vague and ignorant simplicity which come off as "Nuh Uh" debate in the end. This simple truth is on display throughout this thread an many others as it is the standard situation inherent whenever Evolution is debated on the internet. On rare occasion the denier may be more forthcoming and admit their underlying belief structure and the debate quickly ends through lack of material to discuss and those who support evolution lose interest.
Actually some of them are not even religious. Some like Yguy simply do not agree with the evidence of/do not want the theory of evolution to be true because of some misguided need for "meaning" and human "value". I once asked Yguy (see the first post on page 16, my 5th response down) why does it matter whether the Third Reich was morally wrong or not? Wasn't defeating them good enough? Do Yguy's views need to be justified by an outside force? Yguy gave no response.
This member is an excellent example of what I refer to. Though he goes out of his way to deny it (which is another indicator) he likely has an underlying "God" mentality behind his denial of evolution and has been asked about this many times....the adamant denials while showing every sign are indicative of the reality.
Sorry but I don't accept that there is no need to state an alternative theory. I am unaware of any situation where rejecting an explanation without providind an alternative would be considered acceptable in science. For instance if my position is thst the geological fossil record supports evolution because it demonstrates increasing species diversity and complexity over time and someone chooses to reject that theory then it is required to offer an alternative explanation for the fossil record. Could be as simple as saying that God did it as his little joke but it is an alternate theory.
That's an interesting point. Science is aware that theories aren't perfect. Theories are tested all the time - note the work at CERN or the LIGO work that essentially is one more test of Einstein's work. And without a unifying theory of physics, pretty much everything is open to some sort of disturbance in the future. Even with faults the theory of evolution (and others) should be well understood and should continue to be used as long as there aren't superior replacements. The theory of evolution, for example, is a constant supplier of important insights in pretty much all fields touching biology. Simply throwing it away or refusing to teach it without a superior replacement that improves scientific progress is just a ludicrous idea - not even slightly consistent with how science works.
Good! But, let's be real about how science progresses. Example: We used Newton's gravity work well after it was known that there were problems. We didn't notice these problems and then just say, "Well, I guess we can't trust that things will fall anymore." We didn't suddenly give up on calculating targeting for cannons. We didn't start ignoring weight in structural design. And, we didn't stop teaching Newton in every physics class. In fact, today we use Newton even though we know it has a giant hole in it, retaining awareness of when it doesn't work. I'm fine with someone finding a hole in the ToE. But, that does NOT mean we toss the ToE. It means we study the hole, and continue to use the theory in further exploration while being aware of the hole - until a better theory is figured out.
Science has moved way past Darwin and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is nowadays included in a set of theories from a wide field of scientific study, called the Modern evolutionary synthesis, which collectively explain how evolution occurs.
Thanks. Yes, the original ideas have advanced as people have found and fixed holes, demonstrated improvements, etc. I have a tendency to try for simplicity in a discussion, but when it's wrong it's wrong. Plus, what has actually happened in science can be important for people to see - maybe even more important, as it shows science progresses, not static or stuck.
True, the evidence isn't absolute. Evolution might be possible, I suppose in a way you could say I compare it to convicting a criminal based on evidence, for example. Evidence presented was found at a crime scene, and while the crime did not happen before a jury's eyes and no photographs or videos exist to confirm with absolute certainty the defendant is guilty, the jury can find it reasonable to convict the defendant. Of course, like a case in court, the jury can be wrong. But I think it comes down to the logic of "beyond a reasonable doubt". As I said, I probably know less about biology than anyone here. It was merely my speculation. From what little I have heard though, I thought it was said humans evolved down a different path than modern apes. Just that both share a common anscestry. If you truly care about this topic from a scientific perspective, and not a political one, you would at least have some kind of explaination of your own for human origin, that way it can be examined and potentially proven. Though I have my own suspicions as to why those who were on this thread won't state thier own hypothesis. That perhaps by refusing to make a claim, there will be no one to challenge that belief in turn with science. Yguy claimed to know what was sexually immoral, but could not provide scientific evidence to show that absolute morality even exists. I think, for some here, not fully answering the questions by the "evolutionist side" has been done merely for the sake of convenience. I noticed on a thread I created for "anti-evolutionists" to explain human origin with science, not many responded. But hopefully you Prunepicker, who seems more rational than ChemEngineer or Yguy so far, can give everyone here some understanding into other possibilities. Last, your skepticism is reasonable. But the part that seems "unscientific" is when you refuse to contribute to the search for species origin. It makes your objection to the theory of evolution more personal. What are the specific reasons you oppose the theory besides science? You also never mentioned why you don't show other claims of human origin that are taught as absolute truth, the same skepticism or scrutiny.
If that is what they claim, it's fine. The problem is if they are doing everything possible to avoid saying it so they don't get accused of doing with creationism what they say others are doing with evolution (blindly believing in evolution). That way the burden of proof remains a one-sided argument in their favor: "Evolutionists" must prove scientifically, that evolution is true. But "Creationists" won't have to prove anything scientifically, as long as they don't say what their own claims are.
No evidence of a species has been provided. All that's been given is this complete species and that complete species.
Yes, and especially since you obviously didn't read my post. Just like they didn't read what they posted.
I do care about this thread. I don't need to have an explanation for human origin. As I said above, I have no theory and see no reason to make one up. That would make me as phony as an evolutionist. Also, it's not personal. It's about science. The incredible lack of evidence, as I've been saying since I got on this thread.
I watched a documentary the other day and I learned something rather interesting. They have managed to extract organic matter from T-Rex Fossils. One fossil in particular had a type of tissue contained within the thigh bone. Medullary Bone. This is a type of bone found in avians and the particular tissue they found is found in modern birds as the type of bone that develops to be a store of calcium for egg shell production. So this was two interesting discoveries in one. One was that they were able to determine that the T-Rex they found was an egg-laying female (first time they've actually been able to definitively sex a T-Rex) and two...that this was more evidence of the evolutionary connection between theropod dinosaurs and modern-day birds.
