The ever popular diagram of evolutionary progress, which has probably been seen by millions of students, shows ape like animals walking in a row and finally arriving at something we recognize as a human.
popular? maybe with people trying to present a distorted version of evolution still, science considers it more like a "tree" or "bush", the row thing is just wrong and old! like 50-100 years at least. if people are still presenting that in textbooks its not scientists
The net effect of it is that humans came from apes, or something that the evolutionists have told the artists to make look like an ape. I don't think that that stretching the process over millions of mutations over millions of years dulls the essential impact of the concept. At some point you have apes and at another point you had humans. They are related by descent and reproduction.
yes humans did come from apes, they STILL come from apes jay, humans ARE apes, so its kind of irrelevent to argue this ad nausum, what scientists have come up with is common ancesters between the current apes and monkeys - which includes the split between humans and other apes
The net effect of it is that humans came from apes, or something that the evolutionists have told the artists to make look like an ape. I don't think that that stretching the process over millions of mutations over millions of years dulls the essential impact of the concept. At some point you have apes and at another point you had humans. They are related by descent and reproduction.
but you keep recycling the same junk arguements that have been refuted a million times!, "in evolution they think an ape gave birth to a human!"
you make that arguement and we tell you, you are wrong but you claim you know what evolution is? come on man that just won't fly.
But it does seem perculiar to me that humans seem so much to be one of a kind. We seem to occupy a class alone. The dolphins and the chimps are wonderful. But there are still tremendous differences between them and humans.
no this is specisism, you think that humans are tremendously different because you are told we are, not that we really are. there are differences,but there are more things that are the same than not, pain ,love,sex,eatting,sleeping,friendship,etc - the only real things that seem to make us different are the things we force ourselves into, denying we are animals for instance, looking at being an animal as being a bad thing - i mean the very word is looked on as being bad and evil.
we look at all the technology science and such as something great, but really have we altered all that much? maybe a bit, less sickness, but the basic stuff other animals do we still do
Somehow Annafan, this doesn't do much for my sense of the "incredible coincidence" of life arising in the first place. I know that a mighty chorus will say "Evolution is not about origins". It use to be. I think they backed off from that. And Darwin did call his book "Origin" of Species.
i love this, evidence that he meant the book to be about the begining of life please?
you are mostly just playing sematics with the words, it says origin of speciecs not origins of life! he's writing about how species came about, not how life did. read the title ORIGIN of SPECIES
But aside from that I can't get much from rationals that reason that it is not all that much of a coincidence that energy organized itself and brought bacterias to one day transmutate into human beings. Arguments that its not that big of a deal probabalistically aren't too impressive to me.
well to most people, the probabilty is rather irrelevent to the ToE, why is the probability of life being 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 or more matter to a theory that doesn't cover it? i think you need to look elsewere for this answer because it doesn't have anything to do with ToE
Some of these arguments I call Pseudo Buddhist kinds of arguments. That is that there is an illusionary appearance of staggering coicindence. If you just look at it the right way it all seems pretty much what we'd expect. But we have nine or so other planets yelling that it didn't happen there.
what arguements? other than being that, abiogenesis isn't really fleshed out, what does this have to do with the ToE
We have no way of making a statistical comparison about probability until we find one more world where life is. Having found only one so far, what can dull the sense of great coincidence?
you need to realize that the probibity of life's existance is irrelevent to evolution, as far as biological evolution anyway, this has to do with chemestry or physics not biology
™ Version 4.2