Quote:
Originally Posted by quellren
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You really don't understand the principles of Evolution do you? Please go get the cliff-notes of Darwin's book, Origin of Species.
It seems to me that you mistake the end-goal of evolution to be complex, and human-like. Evolution isn't solely about increasing complexity. Humans aren't the pinnacle of evolution. Apes aren't becoming more like you and I because they don't need to.
Here's a scenario:
Two groups of apes, one lives deep in the forest, the other at the edge.
Over time, (10 thousand years, lets say) the forest monkeys keep living in the forest, and only the ones that are very good at climbing trees and grabbing fruit and are thus more healthy. This makes them desirable to female monkeys. They breed more. The ones bad at climbing don't mate, because they are sickly, or too muscular to climb well. They are not attractive to the other sex. Over 100 generations, only the monkeys good at climbing make more monkeys, which are, typically good at climbing. These are the concepts known as Fitness and natural selection. One trait was better ADAPTED and thus a benefit over another. It won the competition and stayed around. The other (non-climbing) wasn't aiding in the survival of the monkeys, so that trait wasn't passed on as often as climbing, agile monkeys.
Let's look at the other group, the forest edge monkeys: They can find food both in trees and on the plains away from trees. Over 100 generations, the forest shrunk and they had to compete with the climbing monkeys deeper in the forest, this was a battle that they wouldn't win, all the fruit was gone, taken by the better climbing monkeys deep in the forest. So they stick to food on the plains. But the grass is tall, so they learn to stand up and look over the grass. Now the tall, strong monkeys that can see danger, and carry lots of food to the family are the ones that are healthier and sought after. The short agile monkeys are at a disadvantage and don't breed often. This physical characteristic eventually dies out.
Over millions of years, this group of monkeys will grow very tall, be able to run long distances, and ditch all the body hair, because it's hot in the sun. They become 'human'.
The forest monkeys stayed short, agile, strong, and excellent tree climbers. WHY?
Because they didn't need to. The monkeys that were good at living in trees a million years ago had the same body shape as today because it's perfect for the monkeys lifestyle, climbing trees for food.
So you can drop that idea that evolution is a downloading progress bar, with the 20% complete, or 80% monkey nonsense.
Evolution is not a conveyor belt to being human.
|
Yes, but you see, at some point we did come from primates right? So in this theory that you've postalized then there would still be a need for some of these monkeys to become humans in order to survive as we continue to kill off their natural habitats thus forcing out their food supply vs population and forcing someone to survive and some to fail. So right now this process would still be happening. Same would be true for a human that is forced to live out in the caves, and do things only at night he would 'devolve' to suit his condition better right?
You have these gaping holes that you can't explain. Your 2 nice neat vacuum scenarios don't work in the real life situation. It's just like physics in a classroom, they designate a coefficient of friction etc to come up with a world to do their work, and prove that they are right. Those truths are in fact in the world, and absolutely make perfect sense, because they are out there, but those scenarios you present don't disprove God, or prove evolution.
Never in the Bible did it say that man can't adapt, that God's creation can't change in order to be better at things. That's why we practice, it's not because our bodies don't have the ability to do things, it's that we haven't learned how to do them, or haven't learned how to do them as effectively as possible.
If evolution were true, then how is it that just innately that some people in today's generation have 0 physical ability to do something athletic. The skinny guys, and girls who end up behind a computer with the typical stereotype. Then same can be said for guys who are just innately born with a gift for athletics, even if their parents weren't. Same would be true with the monkeys. Not every small agile monkey would be the best climber, not every big powerful monkey would be unable to climb well. I mean c'mon, seriously, in the 'perfect world' that you've created, absolutely it makes perfect since, but there are things that science can not yet explain, that are out there.
I have a buddy of mine, amazing athlete, his brother by the same parents, no athletic ability what so ever. They were raised in the same house, doing similar activities, in what way does this support your theory of blacks being born to blacks etc?
People keep saying I'm the one with no reason, yet when I come to you with a real world scenario you're not going to have anything to say, because science can't say why, because science isn't creation.
I don't blindly believe, if I did I wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation. Bring me a fact, not something you've just come up with out of nowhere. Like how can you explain this...
My friend's Uncle, was one of the healthiest, best athletes, and just all around just the ideal physical specimen. Yet Thanksgiving day he wakes up out of nowhere with this huge pain in his stomach, goes to the hospital, and they found a tumor the size of a football in his stomach. They found out that it was cancerous and told him he had a couple of weeks, to a couple of months to live. So this is something that science proved to in fact be real, and be there.
Yet, a few weeks later he went back in and without surgery, without anything going on because they didn't think chemo was worth it, the tumor was gone, and he was given a 100% clean bill of health.
What does your science have to say about that? Cause I know what the non-Christian doctor said. And I assure you it had nothing to do with science, medicine or anything else 'tangible'