If evolution is real why are there still apes?

[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

Too funny, truth detector gave it a like

 

[Guno צְבִי]

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.

 

[Jarod]

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

Idiotic question…. Look up common ancestors.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

Is that the top ten ways Casey Luskin fails to understand science?
I don't see too many problem with Darwin's theory based on Casey Luskin's idiotic post. I only see evidence that Casey Luskin doesn't have much of a clue as to what Darwin's theory of evolution is about.

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.
Darwin's theory doesn't require any mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Anyone claiming it does is an idiot. Darwin's original theory doesn't even know about DNA. It only states that the fittest survive. There is no reason for the fittest to produce high levels of complex and specified information.

 

[Cypress]

But you didn't provide even one rebuttal to one point. Did your university make you too stupid or too pompous to answer? Or both?

I generally don't invest time composing responses to obvious trolling attempts, blatant scientific illiteracy, or appalling stupidity.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

There is no such theory of science. Science has no theories about any past unobserved event. They are not falsifiable. This is a nonscientific theory, and a religion.

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.

Nothing to explain. It's a religion.

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

Oddly enough, that doesn't matter in this religion.

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

Statistical mathematics is not involved here. This is simply a logical conclusion.

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.

So the religion says, yes.

There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution

Yes, there are. Evolution itself does take place, but the Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a religion. It is the Theory of Evolution that states Man evolved from lower life forms. This nonscientific theory first appeared in ancient Greece.

The Theory of Natural Selection (a theory which explains a mechanism for the Theory of Evolution, assuming it to be True), which Darwin proposed, has been falsified due to internal consistency problems and due to exceptions to it being found. It is not a theory of science either.

 

[Into the Night]

You've obviously never set foot inside a university science class.

This is like a high school dropout trying to start a thread on particle physics.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory, and a religion. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

But billions of years of fossils to prove it occurred.

A fossil is not a proof of the Theory of Evolution. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

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

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. The Ancient Greeks did. Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, assuming the Theory of Evolution is True.

Neither are theories of science.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm guessing that evolution slows radically for those species thriving in their environment,
but it trucks on when members of species with certain characteristics do substantially better than their peers without them.

If a specifies like homo sapiens contrives ways to survive despite unfavorable attributes, that slows the process even more.

But evolution cannot be denied. It happens so fast with fruit flies that college freshman can observe it.

Raise grey wolves in your home, and in a mere thirty generations, they're genetically dogs. DNA, not mere behavior or appearance attributes.
That's a very elevated and advanced species revealing the process.

I studied business, not science, in college, but there's enough evidence floating around for some of it to get even to me.

Variations in dogs or fruit flies is not the Theory of Evolution. It is simply evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that Man evolved from lower life forms. It is not a theory of science.

 

[Yakuda]

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. The Ancient Greeks did. Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, assuming the Theory of Evolution is True.

Neither are theories of science.

Point is even Darwin realized his own theory had holes. The "settled science" crowd is moronic.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Point is even Darwin realized his own theory had holes. The "settled science" crowd is moronic.

Science is never settled, when new info becomes available it is tested and the science is updated

A shame you were never taught science

Scientific 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.

 

[Yakuda]

Science is never settled, when new info becomes available it is tested and the science is updated

A shame you were never taught science

Unless it's evolution or climate BS. You're a raging idiot.

 

[Into the Night]

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

No theory of science explains everything. There is no 'Universal Theory' of science.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Each theory makes use of a model of a bit of the universe. Each theory is transcribed into a closed system such as mathematics to gain the power of prediction. Such an equation is also known as a 'law'.

Examples:
The Theory of Motion by Newton is expressed as F=mA. This single equation covers ALL cases of motion, including action, reaction, and angular motion. It is falsifiable. The theory itself can be tested to try to break the theory using a specific and available test that produces a specific result. The first test of this theory by Newton himself used the known orbit of the Moon, Kepler's laws, and Galileo's law. This single equation is compatible with all previous descriptions of motion.

A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory of science MUST be testable against the null hypothesis of that theory (tests designed to destroy the theory) and must withstand such tests. As long as the theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically a theory of science. No vote necessary. No consensus or 'blessing' by some Holy Priesthood of Peers is necessary.

The Theory of Evolution is not testable. No one can go back in time to see what actually happened.
The Theory of Creation is not testable. No one can go back in time to see what actually happened.
The Theory of the Big Bang is not testable. No one can go back in time to see what actually happened.
The Theory of Abiogenesis is not testable. No one can go back in time to see what actually happened.
The Theory of the Continuum is not testable. There is no point in time to go back to.

NONE of these are a theory of science. They remain the circular argument they started out as (which itself isn't a fallacy!). The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.

A religion can best be described as some initial circular argument with arguments extending from it. A religion may or may not have a god or gods.
ALL of these theories are also religions.

Attempting to prove a circular argument True creates the Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

There are many fundamentalists in each of these religions.

 

[Into the Night]

We doubt you would understand why water flows down hill.

Water flowing downhill has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Water flows downhill in accordance with Newton's law of motion, Newton's law of gravitation, and the application of Ohm's law and Kirchoff's law.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Not nearly as many holes in the theory of evolution as there are in your first 5 sentences.

A species can evolve into differing species in the same environment. There is nothing preventing that from happening. An environment can have food in trees and food in roots. A species can evolve into one that climbs trees to get food and one that digs in the ground to get food. The environment is the same but they aren't competing in that environment.

Never been observed. Even if it was, it does not prove the Theory of Evolution True. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

There is plenty of evidence of it happening again and again and again.

So? Means nothing to science.

The problem you have is you think evolution requires major steps to occur. That isn't the case at all.

Here you confuse the Theory of Evolution with evolution itself. The Theory of Evolution states that Man evolved from lower life forms. It is not a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory and a religion.

What statistics are you using? Provide us with your work so it can be checked.

He is not using any. I pointed this out to him.

There is no requirement that a new species evolve and create new branches.

The Theory of Evolution demands exactly that.

Species die out. Species lock in because they are perfect for their environment and can't be out-competed.

Now you are confusing the Theory of Evolution with the Theory of Natural Selection. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified due to internal consistency problems and exceptions to the theory found.

What evidence do you have that no species that came from a common ancestor never branched into other species?

He doesn't need any.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That means the theory itself must withstand tests specifically designed to destroy it. The Theory of Evolution has no such test available. That fact alone means it is not a theory of science. The Theory of Evolution remains a circular argument with arguments extending from it. It is a religion.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.

 

[Into the Night]

That isn't how science works.

Science doesn't 'work'. There is no 'method' or 'procedure' of science. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

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.

WRONG. You are describing religion, not science. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. Further, a hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory, very important to science.

Science doesn't require that there be no holes before something becomes a theory.

A theory is an explanatory argument. It has no 'holes'.

Science also doesn't require that there be no holes before a theory becomes a law.

A theory never becomes a law. A theory of science by itself is incapable of prediction. It only explains, it cannot predict. To gain the power of prediction, the theory must be transcribed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics. The resulting equation is known as a 'law'. If the theory is falsified for any reason, the 'law' goes with it.

There are holes in the law of gravity because not all the answers exist for how it works.

Theories do not have 'holes'.

That doesn't mean you won't fall to the ground if you jump off a building.

If the building is underwater, for example, you will not fall to the seabed by jumping off of it...not unless you are carrying enough weights to compensate for your natural buoyancy.

Yet, this does not falsify Newton's law of gravitation. Indeed, your own natural buoyancy is because of it!

 

[Into the Night]

Point is even Darwin realized his own theory had holes. The "settled science" crowd is moronic.

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was never a theory of science. It fails the internal consistency check. It creates a paradox.

Darwin did NOT create the Theory of Evolution. The ancient Greeks did.

 

[Into the Night]

Science is never settled, when new info becomes available it is tested and the science is updated

A shame you were never taught science

Scientific 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.

Not the scientific method. Science has no 'method' or 'procedure'. You are describing religion. Only religions use supporting evidence. Science does not use any supporting evidence. It doesn't need to.

If a theory is falsified, it is utterly DESTROYED. It is not 'updated'.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

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

Oh for dog's sake. Scientists can explain plenty, but Unintelligent Designers like yourself can't understand it.

Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) diverged from a common ancestor several million years ago. We evolved to become H. sapiens sapiens; they evolved to become other species of primate.

Humans diverged from apes—specifically, the chimpanzee lineage—at some point between about 9.3 million and 6.5 million years ago, towards the end of the Miocene epoch. To understand hominin origins, paleoanthropologists aim to reconstruct the physical characteristics, behavior, and environment of the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

From The American Museum of Natural History