Originally Posted by C4daTimeb0mb I swear the more you argue, the more wrong you sound. Are you really reading and comprehending what I'm saying? Your definition of evolution is not what I'm touching on. (And I don't accept it as evolution) I'm talking about an organism changing to another species. The fish that first walked on land, monkeys transforming into humans, that sort of thing. |
My definition of evolution is the actual definition of evolution. You're talking about something like X-Men, where people suddenly sprout wings or fur or something.
You say a huge change like wings would takes millions of years when according to your views, humans have existed that long. So according to your own logic, the human species have had millions of years to evolve. |
Modern humans have only been around a few hundred thousand years, according to the fossil record.
There's no account of humans having anything other than 2 legs, 2 arms, 2 eyes, etc since the beginning of recorded history. Even in neanderthal drawings, the human figure never changes. |
Recorded history only goes about 6 thousand years, and even cave paintings are less than 50,000 years old. Also, a species that didn't have 2 legs, 2 arms and 2 eyes wouldn't be human, and our evolutionary ancestors going back millions of years had the same configuration.
You say no animal is perfectly adapted, well a lot of scientists would disagree with you. See what they say about a Great White Shark, the perfect k!lling machine. |
That's just a poetic phrase. Any actual biologist who studied evolution would tell you that there are limitations on natural selection, though some species have changes less over time, like the great white, because they are so well adapted.
Then you say animals are taught by their predecessors. Once again, WHO WAS THE PREDECESSOR OF THE FIRST HUMAN BEING ? A monkey? What could he teach a human? Now your saying the first human wasn't alone? |
Before modern humans there were other humans, and before those humans there were hominids, and before that earlier primates. If you look at our closest relatives, chimps, they have social structure, they have the capacity to learn, they have the capacity to communicate, they use tools.
Okay so how many evolved at once? 10, 20? And what was the miraculous signal that happened letting monkeys know that it was time to evolve? You'll twist the !! any way to fit your views. If I did subscribe to the theory of evolution, I would think that all biological changes that took place after the first human were passed down biologically. Your saying that for some reason monkeys one day just began transforming into humans for no reason, now that sounds like a magic trick. |
You seem to have this picture in your head where one day a monkey is sitting there, pregnant, and suddenly a human pops out of it. You need to just completely forget that notion. As I said, evolution is extremely gradual and occurs across an entire population. Entire species evolve, not individual. Since it's so gradual, it's easier to look at big chunks of time, and compare fossils from millions of years and define a species change, so if you look at the fossil record
You can see the shape and size of the skull gradually changing, you can see the skeletal structure gradually changing. It's not one day you have one species and the next day you have a lone human sitting there.
Nothing "decides" to evolve, every species is always evolving. It's a constant, gradual process. You're the one who thinks it works like a magic trick (or again, X-Men).
Why would an ape transform into a human, when an ape is more suited to the living conditions and environment at that time? Yeah I'm an ape, but I'd like to weaker, and not be able to climb trees to avoid predators. Makes perfect sense. |
The theory is that humans evolved in the plains of Africa, after whatever environmental pressures brought earlier primates out of the forests. Being fully bipedal means we're not as good as at climbing trees, but that we can see over the tall grasses in the plains to look for predators. A higher percentage of our food intake goes to power our larger brains, meaning less goes to muscle mass (which is also limited by the nature of bipedalism), but also means we can develop better tools and more advanced hunting and survival strategies, so we rely less on pure strength. We have the abstract reasoning to develop clothing, so as we travel north, we can survive the cold without the benefit of thick fur. So yes, it all actually does make perfect sense.
Lawd Half Mercy...
May 23 - George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Reveals New Evidenc...
Linear Mode
