If evolution is real why are there still apes?

T

Tinkerpeach

Member
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
 
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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'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.
 
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
 
Tinkerpeach said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
There is plenty of evidence of it happening again and again and again. The problem you have is you think evolution requires major steps to occur. That isn't the case at all.
What statistics are you using? Provide us with your work so it can be checked.
There is no requirement that a new species evolve and create new branches. Species die out. Species lock in because they are perfect for their environment and can't be out-competed. What evidence do you have that no species that came from a common ancestor never branched into other species?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dumb. You don't understand the argument at all. What you are describing are BEHAVIORS, not evolution.

Once again, the question is begged: if we evolved from apes. Why haven't apes evolved?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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.
There is plenty of evidence of it happening again and again and again. The problem you have is you think evolution requires major steps to occur. That isn't the case at all.
What statistics are you using? Provide us with your work so it can be checked.
There is no requirement that a new species evolve and create new branches. Species die out. Species lock in because they are perfect for their environment and can't be out-competed. What evidence do you have that no species that came from a common ancestor never branched into other species?
Click to expand...

Translation:

seinfeld-elaine-benes.gif
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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.
Click to expand...

This isn't science. It's a THEORY based on questionable conclusions.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
My first thought about Tinker's argument was it is like arguing that because a stream allows water to leave a lake then the lake can't be full of water.
Click to expand...

Moronic analogy. But it has purpose when talking about what is between your ears. If a halfwit blathers, the halfwits skull is half empty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top