Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
I disagree with universal common descent.
Click to expand...
That’s OK.
It’s not verifiable.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t matter.
Yes, different organisms share the same DNA but that is not evidence that they all descended from a common organism.
Click to expand...
It’s not conclusive, but it’s supportive rather than refutative.
At best, it is a genetic classification system. It is incomplete.
Click to expand...
What is? Evolution or DNA?
 
buffalo said:
“Contested Bones” is the result of four years of intense research into the primary scientific literature concerning those bones that are thought to represent transitional forms between ape and man. This book’s title reflects the surprising reality that all the famous “hominin” bones continue to be fiercely contested today—even within the field of paleoanthropology.
Click to expand...
“Contested Bones” is written by two convinced, proselytising six-day young earth creationists. In so far as their book has any sense in it at all, it directly denies Intelligent Design almost as much as it denies Evolution. Do read it for a classic collection of misrepresented out-of-context quotes and the usual determination to show that evolutionists don’t really believe in evolution.
 
So very predictable. Always attack the person, never deal with the content. My my.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Only with links. Should I Google it for you?
Click to expand...
I am asking you that you may ask yourself, what is actually going on if and when genetic mutations occurred that would see, in our case, presumably human beings arising from a group of hominids. What must happen in that chain of events? What actual physical factors would be involved? You are the one arguing for evolution. There’s no point my outlining out all the deficits of something you fail to understand.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
So very predictable. Always attack the person, never deal with the content. My my.
Click to expand...
The only thing I say about the persons is that they are “convinced, proselytising six-day young earth creationists.” If that’s an attack, then it suggests you think that the description is in some way insulting. What have you got against “convinced, proselytising six-day young earth creationists”, I wonder…
 
Aloysium said:
What must happen in that chain of events? What actual physical factors would be involved?
Click to expand...
I love this kind of question! Spoiler alert: what follows is speculation. It is not proof of anything. Detailed evidence is missing. I say it doesn’t matter, it is an explanation which fits the observations.

In the early 20th century it was often claimed that what mainly distinguished us from the other great apes was bipedal motion and big brains. Hairlessness was another, but less argued about. The question was, which came first? Did we develop big brains, and then set out on a great bipedal adventure, or were we first forced onto our feet, as a result of which big brains became particularly useful? Either scenario was plausible, but there wasn’t enough evidence to be sure either way. Later fossil discoveries led to the majority opinion that bipedalism came first, I believe.

The environmental trigger may have been climate change in Africa, leading to a reduction of forest and increase of grassland. Ancestral apes whose habitat focus had been almost entirely arboreal found themselves on the edges of forests, among sparser trees, such that mutations enabling better bipedal motion led to better foraging, better predator evasion, and increased reproductive success. This led to a locomotion gradient of fully arboreal, half arboreal and half terrestrial, and fully terrestrial. As it happens, the two ends of this gradient reproduced better than the middle, which gradually died out, leading to two groups of ancestral apes which, although they no doubt met at the forest fringes, and which may occasionally have interbred successfully, were nevertheless reproductively isolated, by behaviour and increasingly by morphology. Eventually further mutations would lead to reproductive incompatibility (although it may be that we have not quite reached that stage yet). The new species exploited further mutations, possibly via neoteny among others, enabling a more upright stance and more forward vision, while the now unoccupied upper limbs were the stimulus for increased brain development. Etc. etc.
Is that the sort of thing you were looking for?
 
You know Darwin believed in God right? His model wasn’t created the with the assumption there was no God.
 
That’s the problem. If the supposed carrier of the beneficial mutation dies from being killed by fire or a predator, or for some other reason, it’s back to square one. If the links in the chain of a gradual sequence of improvements is broken then it’s back to square one. Especially if multiple breaks occur.
 
buffalo said:
Deal with the claim, not the claimant.
Click to expand...
Did you read the rest of my comment, or did you go blind with rage at my insulting reference to the authors’ creationism? I find no evidence for any claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top