Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter Bob74h
- Start date
Yeah, so every fossils that was found till now belong to complicated living beign not to the mutant, But evolution theory means that there should be hundreds mutants who transform in something else then just rat or lion.
Again ignorence should not be your excuse in this case, if you want to find truth. Now, what I call here as ignorence? For example some people tried to create new types of fish, but in the end usually new type of fish will die, or return to previous original state. and that happens thanks to DNA code.
To change living beign to something else you need mutations, but not just small mutations with adapting to surface, but big mutations that allow some living creature turn into something absolutely different.
Let me explain this: we have different races of human beign, but it was proved that all humans has one parents which is X and Y - first human beign. Now we can change race colour, size, but we can't change fact that human is homo sapiens and not something else. Thanks to DNA code lion will give birth only to lions, human - humans, wolf- wolfs.
What evolution means with mutations: some rat from mutations, that has usually negative effects, randomly changed into different type of animal. BUT DNA code is not something that you can easy change. Even now humanity artificially can't really do that without facing bad consequences(usually just death), and even when human made some changes in animals DNA, that changes are not enough to even create new type of animal. So you need like 100 mutations that happened in right way to gain a new type of animal, that has no bad effects of this mutation. But that means that 99 types fossils of original animal should exist x N number of animals that have bad mutations and dissapeared from it, where N >>> 99 types of original animal.
But till now, there was no real evidence that any of this links between original animal - rat and human exist. With that beign said it is clear that we know nothing about our origins.
[automerge]1679072708[/automerge]
naah that`s rather about evolution believers
Again ignorence should not be your excuse in this case, if you want to find truth. Now, what I call here as ignorence? For example some people tried to create new types of fish, but in the end usually new type of fish will die, or return to previous original state. and that happens thanks to DNA code.
To change living beign to something else you need mutations, but not just small mutations with adapting to surface, but big mutations that allow some living creature turn into something absolutely different.
Let me explain this: we have different races of human beign, but it was proved that all humans has one parents which is X and Y - first human beign. Now we can change race colour, size, but we can't change fact that human is homo sapiens and not something else. Thanks to DNA code lion will give birth only to lions, human - humans, wolf- wolfs.
What evolution means with mutations: some rat from mutations, that has usually negative effects, randomly changed into different type of animal. BUT DNA code is not something that you can easy change. Even now humanity artificially can't really do that without facing bad consequences(usually just death), and even when human made some changes in animals DNA, that changes are not enough to even create new type of animal. So you need like 100 mutations that happened in right way to gain a new type of animal, that has no bad effects of this mutation. But that means that 99 types fossils of original animal should exist x N number of animals that have bad mutations and dissapeared from it, where N >>> 99 types of original animal.
But till now, there was no real evidence that any of this links between original animal - rat and human exist. With that beign said it is clear that we know nothing about our origins.
[automerge]1679072708[/automerge]
naah that`s rather about evolution believers
Last edited:
No, biologists sometimes also refer to these terms. Yea i agree, there is actually no tangible difference. But you missed my point slightly, though it is critical. I didn't say they dont believe in macroevolution, their disbelief stem on the idea that human and ape as well as other species share a common ancestor. Hence, i proceeded to say "mainly the reliability of the tree of life".
First of all, you dont need to tell me the definition, i myself know the definition about scientific theory. Second, this has nothing to do with what i said. The evolution people refer to is the theory of evolution, not the facts of evolution. This why i said, "In this regard...".
Also, you're clueless lmfao. Just because there is a difference in an idea, doesn't necessarily mean they are in denial. It just means they have different explanations as to how the events unfold.
Is Masami Hasegawa, a top 2% scientist, as well as others who start to cast doubts evolution denier just because he has doubts about the tree of life?
It does matter. Early 20s, disagreeing with the tree of life among scientist would probably make you uncredible. But recent studies suggest that is not necessarily the case.
This is not against evolution entirely correct, but this is in some way against the current evolution theory. It includes how there are possibilites that human has an independent ancestor
what does this has to do with what i said lmao. What you cited is the application of the current evolution theory in interpreting that Alesi is the common ancestor of chimp and humans. What i cited is the studies of the reliability of the UCA
First of all, you dont need to tell me the definition, i myself know the definition about scientific theory. Second, this has nothing to do with what i said. The evolution people refer to is the theory of evolution, not the facts of evolution. This why i said, "In this regard...".
Also, you're clueless lmfao. Just because there is a difference in an idea, doesn't necessarily mean they are in denial. It just means they have different explanations as to how the events unfold.
Is Masami Hasegawa, a top 2% scientist, as well as others who start to cast doubts evolution denier just because he has doubts about the tree of life?
It does matter. Early 20s, disagreeing with the tree of life among scientist would probably make you uncredible. But recent studies suggest that is not necessarily the case.
This is not against evolution entirely correct, but this is in some way against the current evolution theory. It includes how there are possibilites that human has an independent ancestor
what does this has to do with what i said lmao. What you cited is the application of the current evolution theory in interpreting that Alesi is the common ancestor of chimp and humans. What i cited is the studies of the reliability of the UCA
um. yes? sounds like the scientific method works
[automerge]1679075580[/automerge]
If you believe in creation and deny evolution, then you are in denial.
a scientist researching evolution to improve our understanding of it (sounds like the scientific method works) is obviously not beign an "evolution denier" wtf?
what do you mean by independent?
[automerge]1679075580[/automerge]
If you believe in creation and deny evolution, then you are in denial.
a scientist researching evolution to improve our understanding of it (sounds like the scientific method works) is obviously not beign an "evolution denier" wtf?
what do you mean by independent?
Last edited:
What I posted is not an application of Darwin's theory, it is a piece of paleontological evidence.
Just like this is a shred of genetic evidence.
https://www.broadinstitute.org/news...reveals-striking-similarities-and-differences
Just like this is a shred of genetic evidence.
https://www.broadinstitute.org/news...reveals-striking-similarities-and-differences
Simply put, difference ancestor. As i said earlier, scientists start to think that the commonly known tree of life might be outdated. They are trying to come up with better concept such as tangled tree of life and web of life. This implies there might be more than 1 ancestor. As such, this open the possibilities that human have a different and possibly a unique ancestor, which is aligned with what the religious people especially the abrahmic ones believe in.
When will you ever learn it's not as simple as believing or denying evolution theory entirely lol. The two primary ideas are that they dont believe in the randomness of DNA mutation (which again is a topic being discussed as more studies suggests DNA mutation migh not be that random, if at all) and the idea that human evolved from the same ancestor as the other species. These two topics are currently controversial even among evolutionists. If you say that just because someone doesn't agree with the traditional evolution theory means they are evolution deniers which you did imply so, it means the evolutionists who cast doubts in these two controversial subtopics are also evolution deniers. What you're doing basically is generalizing a group because thay dont agree with something that is not even certain of.
Of course, there are blind religious people who deny the evolution theory entirely. But they are mostly the elders who are not uneducated enough. Most of the religious gen Z including ones that happen to work in a scientific field know that the current evolution theory is true, with the exception of the two subtopics ive mentioned. And this is for good reason, even among the leading scientists in evolutionary biologists.
It is
Facts:
- They share similar DNA
- They share similar morphological structure
Interpretation:
- They share a common ancestor
The former is not necessarily an implication of common ancestry. Did you read my post lol? A top 2% scientists currently working as a professor in China found that using the "formal" method supports the common ancestry theory of two unrelated mythocondria. This arises suspicions of the reliability of the current method.
The latter is also not necessarily mean they share a common ancestor, it can also mean they live in a similar environment that force them to do similar jobs.
It has to be understood that even though the current interpretation is not necessarily true, it is still currently the best interpretation. We have to acknowledge that i agree. However, more and more studies suggests that this might not necessarily be the case and we might have understood evolution wrong, as suggested by the studies done by evolutionists that i cited in my post earlier.
When will you ever learn it's not as simple as believing or denying evolution theory entirely lol. The two primary ideas are that they dont believe in the randomness of DNA mutation (which again is a topic being discussed as more studies suggests DNA mutation migh not be that random, if at all) and the idea that human evolved from the same ancestor as the other species. These two topics are currently controversial even among evolutionists. If you say that just because someone doesn't agree with the traditional evolution theory means they are evolution deniers which you did imply so, it means the evolutionists who cast doubts in these two controversial subtopics are also evolution deniers. What you're doing basically is generalizing a group because thay dont agree with something that is not even certain of.
Of course, there are blind religious people who deny the evolution theory entirely. But they are mostly the elders who are not uneducated enough. Most of the religious gen Z including ones that happen to work in a scientific field know that the current evolution theory is true, with the exception of the two subtopics ive mentioned. And this is for good reason, even among the leading scientists in evolutionary biologists.
It is
Facts:
- They share similar DNA
- They share similar morphological structure
Interpretation:
- They share a common ancestor
The former is not necessarily an implication of common ancestry. Did you read my post lol? A top 2% scientists currently working as a professor in China found that using the "formal" method supports the common ancestry theory of two unrelated mythocondria. This arises suspicions of the reliability of the current method.
The latter is also not necessarily mean they share a common ancestor, it can also mean they live in a similar environment that force them to do similar jobs.
It has to be understood that even though the current interpretation is not necessarily true, it is still currently the best interpretation. We have to acknowledge that i agree. However, more and more studies suggests that this might not necessarily be the case and we might have understood evolution wrong, as suggested by the studies done by evolutionists that i cited in my post earlier.
