If evolution is real why are there still apes?

[Truth Detector]

LOL. If you say so, Poopiehead.

Now explain DNA sequencing and how it supports your "theory."

Right after you explain how you got through the 1st grade being mentally retarded.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Moronic analogy. But it has purpose when talking about what is between your ears. If a halfwit blathers, the halfwits skull is half empty.

Gosh, Poopiehead, it's almost like you have no wit at all.

If someone only takes one fact and ignores the rest would an analogy that takes one fact and ignores the rest be apt? Maybe if you had pulled your round head out of that steer's behind earlier you might have been able to see that.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Right after you explain how you got through the 1st grade being mentally retarded.

First grade was rough. Luckily they let me check out 3rd grade level books so I wasn't too bored.

Perhaps some day, Poopiehead, you will be able to tell the difference between synonyms and antonyms. (Advanced is not a synonym of retarded.)

 

[zymurgy]

Really? How is that? What makes me laugh is that halfwits on the left cannot grasp that it is a THEORY. Not science. That's why they call it the THEORY of evolution.

not everything is axiomatic

 

[AProudLefty]

Really? How is that? What makes me laugh is that halfwits on the left cannot grasp that it is a THEORY. Not science. That's why they call it the THEORY of evolution.

Scientific theory, yes. You truly are a dumbass.

Know what else is a theory? Electronics. Yes that's right... the computer you're using is based on that theory.

 

[AProudLefty]

However the problem with this theory is that scientists cannot explain why the same genes would evolve on differing paths since the common ancestor was located in the same environment.

Here's your major error. You made an assumption that they remained in the same environment.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Really? How is that? What makes me laugh is that halfwits on the left cannot grasp that it is a THEORY. Not science. That's why they call it the THEORY of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Evolution would be a scientific theory.

Poopiehead thinking he is smart because his head is not outside the steer's ass would not be a scientific theory. That would simply be a description of your avatar.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I understand theory but the accepted belief from most intellectuals is that evolution is a fact and something cannot be a fact when so many unknowns surround it.

Since evolution cannot be fully explained shouldn’t creationism also be considered until science has more answers?

 

[BidenPresident]

I understand theory but the accepted belief from most intellectuals is that evolution is a fact and something cannot be a fact when so many unknowns surround it.

Since evolution cannot be fully explained shouldn’t creationism also be considered until science has more answers?

Why bother verifying anything? Let any belief be true.

 

[BidenPresident]

I understand theory but the accepted belief from most intellectuals is that evolution is a fact and something cannot be a fact when so many unknowns surround it.

Since evolution cannot be fully explained shouldn’t creationism also be considered until science has more answers?

Not that anything could alter your ignorance, but evolution is not about the absolute origin of the world.

 

[signalmankenneth]

Science would say that we didn’t actually evolve from apes but that we both evolved from a common ancestor in a process that is essentially the genes of our common ancestor mutating into different forms leading to us and apes.

However the problem with this theory is that scientists cannot explain why the same genes would evolve on differing paths since the common ancestor was located in the same environment.

Another problem is that after that branching of genes from our common ancestors there is zero evidence of it ever happening again.

Statistically that would be an impossibility since if it happens once it should be an ongoing process.

So yes, after that split from the common ancestor each species evolved in their own way but never again did any species genes branch out again to create multiple new species.

There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution

Here you go:

http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2017/03/understanding_evolution_-_how_.html

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1184703

 

[Yakuda]

I didn’t claim evolution wasn’t real I said there are many holes in the theory that science glossed over.

In order to claim something as fact it should be completely explainable and evolution isn’t

There are tons and I posted 10 of them

 

[Yakuda]

Here you go:

http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2017/03/understanding_evolution_-_how_.html

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1184703

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

 

[Flash]

I didn’t claim evolution wasn’t real I said there are many holes in the theory that science glossed over.

In order to claim something as fact it should be completely explainable and evolution isn’t

In science theories are based on facts. Theory and fact are not two separate things.

 

[Flash]

Really? How is that? What makes me laugh is that halfwits on the left cannot grasp that it is a THEORY. Not science. That's why they call it the THEORY of evolution.

And halfwits on the right and left think "theory" is not built on proven facts. The "theory" of gravity does not mean it is just somebody's idea. It is based on proven hypotheses.

 

[AProudLefty]

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

There is no such thing as Darwinian Evolution.

 

[AProudLefty]

Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

 

[Hawkeye10]

Because they successfully adapted to this planet....something to consider as the WOKE suicide cult puts no effort into adapting to the planet, insteading putting all their eggs into eliminating the human population.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Science would say that we didn’t actually evolve from apes but that we both evolved from a common ancestor in a process that is essentially the genes of our common ancestor mutating into different forms leading to us and apes.

However the problem with this theory is that scientists cannot explain why the same genes would evolve on differing paths since the common ancestor was located in the same environment.

Another problem is that after that branching of genes from our common ancestors there is zero evidence of it ever happening again.

Statistically that would be an impossibility since if it happens once it should be an ongoing process.

So yes, after that split from the common ancestor each species evolved in their own way but never again did any species genes branch out again to create multiple new species.

There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution

Just how low can your IQ go?

It is not linear


Initial comparisons confirm that chimpanzees are our closest relatives, sharing 99% of our DNA. Gorillas come a close second with 98%, and orangutans third with a 97% share.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pe... species look alike,98.8 percent of their DNA.

A theory in science isn't a wild ass guess
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

That isn't how science works.
Science takes the best available evidence and proposes a hypothesis based on that evidence. Science is willing to discard that hypothesis when there is enough evidence to dispute it or more evidence to support a different hypothesis. When the evidence supporting a hypothesis grows it becomes a theory because there is little disputing it. Denial and nay-saying isn't science.

Science doesn't require that there be no holes before something becomes a theory. Science also doesn't require that there be no holes before a theory becomes a law. There are holes in the law of gravity because not all the answers exist for how it works. That doesn't mean you won't fall to the ground if you jump off a building.

What the science illiterates don't understand is when more info becomes available and tested, science is updated