The incorrectly claim that evolution has zero evidence, ask how a monkey + monkey gave birth to a human overnight and of course attack evolution (but clearly have zero understanding of it). Is is just religious people (sorry to mention religion here).
I can't grasp how some seemingly intelligent people can't grasp the similar concept that humans and apes have common ancestors, not that apes turned into humans.
The monkey didn't give birth, over the period of the monkey's lives they became more and more like people ... haven't you seen the charts?
Haha. Yeah, evolution doesn't take millions of years; a chimp just takes five steps forward and it's a naked dude!
But seriously, I think that in a lot of cases people who see evolution as illogical or nonsensical don't appreciate just how long the process takes. Even when we say 'millions and millions of years', I think a lot of people still don't grasp just how many thousands of generations that gives natural selection to work over.
But people have a lot of arguments against evolution. I don't agree with a single one of them, but they're not always based on incomprehension.
But evolution makes sense to you? Explain?
If you and a person of the other sex get together and have a baby, the little Abbasangel won't look or behave exactly like either of you. The baby will be a little different. If you run that forward a dozen generations, is it likely that the end result will look like you?
Yah evolution has some keen insights into what it should become.. oh... doh.. lol. Thank goodness (god) for the keen insights and thoughtfulness of evolution. Evolution (god) is a good planner and well able to predict accurately what it will become (gods doing) I am so glad that the similarities between monkies and man spurred this irrational belief in evolution. Yet i see no resemblance between a chicken and an egg.
I have nothing to comment on your Thesis, but I have a word regarding your stated ... the fact of your
Apologising, for "Mentioning" Religion in the write up
about two monkeys not making a Human ... !
This Demonstrates the Fact, that Religion ... Representing any kind of "Belief, in a public Profession ... Is, now Taboo, in the West's Sciences Emancipated ... meaning, the Educated, hence, Secularized circles !
I thank you my friend, for providing a Proof to my Belief.
so then why are there still monkeys, they should all be humans by now?
No that is an illogical question Joy!
Hang on that makes perfect sense if humans are natures natrual selection then why didn't the monkies get killed out or all turned in to humans? Over the millions and millions of years?
It's scientific, so there has to be a hypothesis, proven hypothesis, rule and repeat.... of that scenario right?
that's another misconception - that all the monkeys turn into something else. Evolution is branching, like a tree. The monkeys went off in one branch, and the apes another. Humans are off an ape branch.
Sorry and the question is and yet there are still apes? Or the apes furthest removed from people were ok and survived and this doesn't happen anymore because?
There is more than one type of great ape. We are one of those. You don't understand why there are more than one species of ape? You think they should have all died out when hominids diverged?
What doesn't happen any more?
there's a pic on my hub on darwin showing how the apes are split
Hey Joy, sorry for dashing yesterday! I didn't know I had to go to the bank (thanks for warning me early hubby!) till I knew and then it was a mad dash. Going to have to go today too because we didn't have the right paperwork!
Sorry guys, thread hijack over now, please resume your previous discussion
Your forgiven I guess... although that was completely random, and now I am most curious!! But I think I might dash too!! Lovely meeting you kirsenblog,
and Joy56 again!
Baileybear.. I hope we can still be friends!!
I am totally random, its park of my charm
Last night Joy and I were having a lovely time on a religious thread and then I was gone, no warning or goodbye. I just read the posts after leaving and boy did the thread get dull as dish water! No one fun to keep it lively I guess. Anyway I wanted to let joy know what had happened and why I stopped posting
As far as evolution, my biggest question is, are we still evolving? Are my double joints a strange mutation that will lead to strange new creatures in the future? I know I have been called a mutant before
Ha ha... I love it!! Anyway I have to get away from the screen ... over 12 hours exposure my eyes are going square... or is that necessary for my next stage of evolution?
Turning into a human is not the goal of evolution. The goal of evolution is to adapt more perfectly to our environment. We are humans because we evolved to fit perfectly into one niche in the ecosystem. The other great apes - chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans - evolved to fit perfectly into different niches; the hundreds of different species of monkeys, lemurs, and other primates around the world all evolved to fit into their own individual niches.
When the environment changes, as it eventually will, we may evolve (over a very, very long stretch of time), into something else, or we may be supplanted to make way for something different that is better adapted to the changed environment. Again, humans are neither the goal nor the end result of evolution; we're just one more species making our way in the world.
ironically, monkey are more 'evolved' than humans and bacteria are more 'evolved' than humans.
Another misconception is that humans are the summit and what evolution 'drives towards'.
Yet another is that people find it so insulting to be considered 'just an animal'. What view do people that say this have of animals? Back in Darwin's time, animals were considered 'brutes' and were abused/mistreated.
Animals have rights and should be cared for. Valuing animals = valuing humans, but this seems too hard to grasp.
I don't believe that humans and monkeys are related at all. The only reason that idea is pushed, is because man needs to find a logical reason on why we are here. Not, just to blow all the religious theory out of the water, but, to try to make sense of a world that we still don't totally understand, and are constantly studying. One reason why scientists are freaking out about changes in the weather.
I think it's funny, because Science claims that the earth was one continent at some point in time, and the what we know today came out of changes in the earth, and there was an ice age, without any factories around to make it happen. It's been hot, cold, dry, and all kinds of creatures have come and gone. Including whole races of people that no longer exist.
But, all this stuff they are saying is only theory. I don't know what makes them think they are so much smarter than people were 2,000 years ago. Anyways, I only believe half of what I hear.
would you say that fur-seals and dogs are possibly related? Ever seen a pic of a fur seal? - look just like a dog but with smaller ears & tail and have flippers except legs. Their DNA is approx 95% identical
Both have fur, same type of eyes & nose, whiskers, canines, are carnivores, and produce milk for their pups.
How do you explain that we're anywhere from 95%-98% genetically identical to our fellow great apes, and how do you explain the obvious family resemblance in skeletal and muscular structure?
Just because the climate has changed naturally in the past doesn't mean that human activity isn't affecting it now.
Calling something "only" a theory shows a misunderstanding of what the word theory means in science. Gravity is "only" a theory. Atoms are "only" a theory.
We're not smarter than people 2000 years ago. We just have 2000 more years of accumulated observation and knowledge about the world, more advanced technology that allows us to do things like fly into space to see what shape the earth really is, and a higher percentage of people who aren't 100% preoccupied with growing enough food to stay alive so more people have spare time to do things like plan and conduct scientific experiments.
manna in the wild has just published a hub about simple scientific terms that get misunderstood, like 'theory'
http://hubpages.com/hub/A-short-descrip … w-and-fact
"But, all this stuff they are saying is only theory. I don't know what makes them think they are so much smarter than people were 2,000 years ago"
You say writing on a computer connected to the internet influencing people half a world away that 2000 years ago no one would have believed existed because they all knew the world was flat.
We are so much smarter than people 2000 years ago because an additional 2000 years of (accelerated recently) accumulated knowledge allows us to be.
If you don't want to believe in evolution that is your call, your take on the evidence would be interesting but I'm not going to try convince you (new here and don't want to start down that route!) - but to suggest we're not considerably smarter than people 2000 years ago is, imo, a strange concept.
Mental capacity? Maybe (it has been suggested that improved diet and medical care has allowed the general percentage of people with high IQs to rise - but don't think that has been proven). Information readily available to prove information, and facts laid as a base to further improve knowledge? Certainly.
My knowledge that the Earth is round is already considerably ahead of 2000 years ago. Hell if you look at it from a Christian point of view 2000 years ago almost no one was Christian (what with not really having much time to adopt it), and the bible wouldnt be written for centuries - so presumably from a Christian outlook we know far more than they did 2000 years ago
Not to mention the untold number of idiots killed by doing stupid things for the last 2,000 years. Imagine how much stupid DNA was prevented from being replicated by this type of "natural selection."
And it continues even today with many more modern ways for morons to kill themselves accidentally and helping this evolutionary process proceed at a faster rate.
So I would think we are at least a bit smarter than the average mortal 2,000 years ago because of this factor, if by nothing else. Ha!
I was trying to leave evolution out of that side of the argument for 2 reasons
1) to allow for kerryg's point of view on evolution since it was not central to the point I was making
2) I am not sure that there is that much 'evolution' going on in mankind any more - and certainly not in the natural selection way you suggest
Mankind, at least in the West, has risen to the point where it is able to look after all of it's own if it so wishes. To this end plenty of people who would not have survived or bred are now able to do so. This means that 'weaker' genetic stock is able to survive and even flourish.
Obviously weaker is relative. Stephen Hawking, for example, would never have survived previously and we would be denied his genius. But there are plenty of idiots alive now that go the other way.
This is not a bad thing, all people have a right to life and any efforts to guide evolution would be doing, well doing what the Nazi's did trying to create the 'Master Race'.
But it does mean that natural selection has at the very least changed dramatically.
I found some interesting reading a year or two back on the changes to people based on certain factors such as intelligent people tending to mate with intelligent people, and the likely outcomes on how this would effect humans over time. But I forget where and am struggling to find anything more on the subject (suggesting it was more likely 'pseudo science' but I found it fascinating).
All this means is there are different factors affecting our evolution. Not that we have stopped evolving. It takes many thousands of years to see a change and it is odd that you assume we have stopped evolving, Survival of the "fittest" may now mean different things. Perhaps the fastest runner or strongest fighter was the "fittest" in the past. That may not now be the case. But we must adapt to our changing environment. Suppose the earth does heat up - we will adapt of die. The humans most able to adapt will be the "fittest," in that case. Maybe we will go back to the water? Who knows? But one thing is certain - we adapt or die out. Or move out perhaps - that might be the next stage of human evolution.
True... of course technology is rapidly diminishing how outside stimulai can effect us so my saying that things have changed dramatically there is more inline with saying its stopped.
The difference is that now we dont know how we are changing. Each mutation (if we were to follow the natural selection path) has every chance of succeeding as any other mutation providing it allows someone to breed. There is no extra benefits to be gained (as a rule) over conquering outside issues.
Which suggests mutation will happen but will struggle to become a norm and the next 'leap' is either likely to be due to a massive change in external influences technology can't compensate for, or will be gaining advantages in whatever man made problems we create/come up against
well 200 years after Darwin's theory was published, hubs are being written attacking "evolution" - but not what evolution actually is. They think evolution is the same old misconceptions from 200 years ago - eg 1 animal 'suddenly' turned into another. So they're attacking a misconception, therefore creating more misconceptions - crazy - huh?
If leaves fall off a tree naturally in the autumn, there's nothing in that fact to preclude a bunch of people pulling the leaves off the tree prematurely, and causing it to die.
Now apply that to climate.
Now and again you see someone acting really stupid and the link seems more apparent. Sorry monkeys no insult intended.
Maybe a vestigial tail could help folks get an idea for what evidence there is for evolution that can be seen today, but just about anyone (not just scientists)
Some people have suggested--and I agree it is reasonable--tha people who don't accept the basic validity of Christianity should not comment in the Christian living thread. Perhaps we could have some kind of deal to go along with that if the same guideline applies to the Evolution forum. After all, evolution is as fundamental to the life sciences as believe in God is to Christianity.
So let me get this straight...it makes more sense that an invisible man in the sky took a chunk of clay and turned it into a machine more complex than man has ever been able to produce?
i agree Amie Warren! Although, there are some religious peoples who believe in the theory of evolution, however, they choose to answer the questions not addressed by the theory by inserting god into the equation. Whatever man fails to figure out, or is scared to figure out, a somewhat magical entity is often used to settle the unknown.
On the subject of the evolution of mankind I was fascinated to read this article on the BBC
Whilst the focus of the article is on interbreeding of 'proto humans' I actually considered the information on the types of pre humans more interesting - I wasn't aware of this.
"According to the researchers, this provides confirmation there were at least four distinct types of human in existence when anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) first left their African homeland."
This might help those struggling with the concept understand it wasn't a predestined route but a case of natural selection that has us still around.
Pointing out errors in beliefs about evolution on an internet forum makes no sweeping statements to anyone without a pre-determined agenda.
I heard they are looking in to the possibility that humans are related to giraffes.
Evolution is still happening. Humans are gradually getting taller, and women's pelvises are becoming narrower.
And for those who discard evolution in favor of God: I believe in both. I don't see that as a problem.
"Evolution is still happening. Humans are gradually getting taller, and women's pelvises are becoming narrower. "
Isn't that thought to be due to diet becoming advanced enough to give us what we need, drugs fighting off diseases etc?
Thought that was what people were attributing it to anyway
This is one of the biggest issues with evolution and why many flat earthers can't grasp it - is the time involved. We have been keeping records and writing them down for around 3500 years in any way that is not signs representing things, hieroglyphics.
Memory kept through oral stories seems to go back to the bronze age - the furthest maybe 6 or 7000 years old.
Evolutionary changes to a significantly different form generally happen over periods of hundreds of thousands of years - and remains of creatures that looked pretty much like us (but smaller if my memory is correct) have been found up to 1 million years old. Time scales like this can be written down and understood but not everyone can imagine them. Like the time humans have been on the earth from the earliest remains found is less than 1% of 1% of the age of the earth. All figures thereabouts as I am not going to go look them all up.
On the other hand this is also why orally transmitted stories might unexpectedly be true, such as memories of a great flood - it could have occurred anytime after the development of speech to pass the story on with and so we would have to go look over a period of half a million years or so for evidence.
Sorry to ramble on but I just got really fed up with the moronic drivel coming from the creationists who ignore every argument and just keep coming back with the same childish garbage.
The time and the fact that there is far more that we don't know than we know also means that maybe we should leave open the possibility of some creator or other, however unlikely that might be. Happy Christmas from China as we are about to go to bed as it will arrive in about 2 hours
I hear a baby was born in Dublin, with skis on its feet yesterday......
Lol, Joy! Do want to have kids/more kids? If so, you don't want a narrow pelvis.
I gots them "child-bearing" hips!
This is not evolution. If people who are tall and come from narrow pelvis-ed mothers could no longer breed with those who are tall and come from narrow pelvis-ed mothers than that would demonstrate evolution. What you are referring to is a consequence of natural selection or in the case of humans, selective breeding. Women seek tall partners, men seek women with narrow hips - this results in morphological not genetic changes.
An excellent demonstration of this is observable in its most amazing and common form - the dog. All dogs are the same species. A chihuahua can breed with an mastiff because they are the same species. That is after fifteen thousand years of selective breeding. The shifting standards of physical beauty among human cultures has resulted in the current changes in body dimension. Wait until it becomes important, again, for humans to breed in large numbers - women will get "hippier."
It becomes evolution though. If chihuahuas and mastiffs became separated from each other for a few million years so they didn't or couldn't interbreed, they'd evolve into completely separate species. For an example of the kind of time scale we're looking at here, the most recent common ancestor of horses and zebras lived about 6 million years ago, but they can still interbreed, though the offspring is infertile. Chihuahuas and mastiffs have a long way to go.
Horses can reproduce with zebras despite geographical separation, true. Horses can also reproduce with donkeys yet produce sterile off spring despite no separation for thousands of years. It is not the time that matters. It is the retention of genetic integrity across generations - the number of generations and the number of mutations per generation that prove useful to subsequent generations matters far more than time.
The scientific ignorance and general inability to reason logically demonstrated repeatedly here is truly sad.
Unless these people were home schooled, their teachers should be flogged.
It there really anything that truly matters to us
(comparing it to an itch) ..
if we can not scratch it.
by lovetherain 3 years ago
I would like feedback on how I can improve this Hub.https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … -Years-Old
by Rajan Singh Jolly 9 years ago
If man has evolved from the monkeys or Apes, then why are they still around?
by olga khumlo 5 years ago
Evolutionists say man evolved from monkey ,How did he get his soul?When God created man He breathed into man's nostrils and man became a living soul.Animals do not possess a soul .How do evolutionists account for man receiving a soul ? Moreover why are the monkeys not evolving into man today?
by Freegoldman 9 years ago
is there a logic..
by Lawal Abiodun 5 years ago
If man evolved from monkeys, how come we still have monkeys?According to scientists, it has always to been said, times without number, that humans evolved from some kind of chimpanzee, ape or monkey. Well, this hypothesis is seems unrealistic to me, but if you do believe in the big bang, you should...
by sooner than later 11 years ago
http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uplo … tofman.jpgthis was worth its own space. I am going to break this picture down from left to right, so if I say "the third monkey" that is the third monkey from the left. The first monkey is actually a chimp. However, it has the back jaw...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|