If eating bananas works, yes. If there's no pressure for extinction, yep, they'll keep on with their bananas while we keep on with our SUVs. Sharks haven't changed in the last 250 million years, but plenty of other fish have evolved over that time. They just swim around and eat other fish (and pinipeds) in the most basic, stripped-down way possible. For evolution, this isn't a problem. As for the difference between you and an ape (this is nothing personal!), our DNA is something like 98-99% the same. (Can a biologist correct me on that?) But I see what you mean, in that we do (usually) smell and act differently.
6000 years ago apes were eating bananas in a tree and picking flees off of each other . Today apes are eating bananas in a tree and picking flees off of each other. 6000 years ago man was living in somewhat crude but adequate dwellings. Today man is living in temperature controlled dwellings, driving cars, flying in planes, traveling in space and talking to people on the other side of the world at the speed of light. Something is very different...
See the thing with you anti-evolution propagandists is that you keep insinuating that a "theory" is simply an educated guess, yet you have plausible deniability and can brush it off when confronted with the actual usage of the term, because all you're doing is relying on connotations, which is good enough when trying to convince ordinary people. It's truly unfortunate that the word theory can be abused like this, and that it's so easy to delude the populace using the connotations of the word.
Everything in science is subject to change. It's only this particular subject that some people are whining about. The fundies are not crying about the classification of Pluto as a planet. It's just this subject that they can not handle.
shrug, and there are plenty of good things and people happening in Christianity, but it seems only the bad apples get paraded about. I don't have a problem with that, I think my faith can stand up to proper scrutiny, and if not, well then that's your loss I would think scientists should feel the same way about evolution and science in general.
Magnetism isn't really understood, either, but we know how to use it. The very basis of a lot of our technology is not really understood, but we use it. Pretty freaky. D&D. Impeach Dildo and His Battery.
Why are there some humans still living in huts in the jungle and some humans living in condos with A/C and internet? You're arguing that everything has to be a lineal and absolute progression when that isn't the case at all. The mechanism of selective adaption depends upon what sort of pressures are applied to a particular population in a particular region. Those pressures don't lead to a wholesale change but a gradual shift of some members of that population who have a particular advantage gradually become a new species. Given the range of any species though there could be populations of the previous species subject to different environmental pressures and they remain either mostly the same or take a different direction. This was the one of the keys to Darwin formulating the theory by noticing how finches diversified to fill various ecological niches in the Gallapagos.
I think you are still confusing the effects with the mechanism. We know that gravity exist and have a theory(s) for how it works. We know that speciation exist and have a theory for how that came to be called evolution.
Actually, Deck, we understand magnetism pretty well now through Quantum Electrodynamics. It is, some would say, the most successful theory in the history of physics, in terms of it predicting experimental data out to like 21 decimal places. It's much more solid and consistent than our picture of gravity actually. I'm not trying to be snarky as much as I'm trying to nerd out and share the good word!
Theory of Life After Death- Man is a living soul and there is a spiritual part of man that is eternal. Theory of evolution- Simple organisms became complex. Too bad science can't help us with death. We are making very slight statistical adjustments to lifespan when death actually successfully grips each of us sooner than later. 80 yrs is not very long to live. I can't think of one good reason why scientists should even be concerned about origins. I'm sure some of you have a list of all the betterment to mankind this science has brought us. Like it was said, some people are poor and live in dumps and a few people are well off and have excess. Out of 6.5 billion people on earth we haven't made much progress in human relations since recorded time. War, murder, poverty, selfishness, greed, power, prejudice, torture, abuse, genocide... If we did evolve our hearts are far behind our intellect in my opinion.
So you're a creationist right? Yeah I get you aren't disputing evolution, but you did state two things. 1) A defense of the socratic method in analyzing scientific questions which I disagreed with. and 2) That we should emphasize evolution is a theory which has been stated by many opponents of evolution (hence the conflation of you with evolution critics) Anyway I disagreed with both points. No personal attack intended but the socratic method doesn't work in this case and I believe that there is no reason to emphasize that evolution is a theory because that creates unnecessary doubt as to its validity in mainstream scientific circles. Just like if we were to start emphasizing that gravity is a theory, it would automatically cast doubt as to whether gravity is truly real.
Elitisim? When you tell a scientist that has dedicated his life to his field something as stupid as "I think they need to emphasize that it is a theory in grade school more" you are going to get a harsh response for the reasons I stated. 1) Every grade school biology course DOES NOT need to emphasize that evolution is a theory because the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is taught years before the theory of evolution is introduced to students. Knowledge of the scientific method is absolutely necessary to learning anything about science. 2) There is no reason that evolution should be singled out and emphasized as theory over Newtonian physics, relativity, atomic structure, quantum mechanics, etc. It is implied. If you go into an Italian restaurant in Rome and start complaining that the pizza doesn't taste like your favorite American version, you are going to get an angry response from someone who may not have graduated High School. Getting pissed off isn't Elitist.
Really? Is there a "dummy" level book you could recommend that discusses it? When was this theory propagated? Oh, and you couldn't be snarky, B-Bob. You have a sense of humor too finely tuned for that. D&D. Impeach Dildo and His Battery.
If evolution is just mutation that results in a more successful species, why in the world wouldn't one expect to find more than one evolutionary branch of man existing at the same time? Domination wouldn't be instantaneous, even assimilation wouldn't be instantaneous because of geographic distribution. I thought this was a "well duh' story. Heck Homo Erectus lived in the same general area as Neanderthals at one point...how different could two branches of the same species be (not technically the same species but of common heritage) Theories will always be theories because the The Uncertainty Principle always limits knowledge short of fact. Theories are about as good as human knowledge gets. And no Rhester , there is not theory on life after death because it is not observable, predictable or repeatable. It's just the same rationalization, delusion and wishful thinking it has always been.
My wife is always calling me Deckard Erectus. I can't figure out why. It's not like I have a lot of hair anymore. D&D. Impeach Dildo and His Battery.
You are way too kind. But I'd recommend The End of Physics by (I think) Lightman. It has some nice chapters on the development and understanding of QED. That's largely the legacy of Richard Feynmann and pals. Warning though: I think this is a very dense, tricky and mathematical area -- moreso than a lot of other areas of physics. There just aren't very good analogies or real-world examples for this sub-microscopic stuff. pirc1, the answer is yes, when I'm not doing paperwork and answering emails. Long, boring story.
I do have some more questions: Where did “our” miracle monkey come from? An amoeba? And trees - where did they come from? Amoebas? Rosters too? Whales too? etc too? Or did they just morph into some super living transformer plasma that eventually transformed itself into every living thing on this earth? And this miracle beta amoeba survived the big bang? Do you have any idea what kind of force and energy that gave off? And if you look around today can you find this super amoeba? All’s I see are these wimpy amoebas that can just split into other amoebas that are exactly like the "parent". Sounds like their evolution went backwards??? And what are the odds that when a chicken "came around" that a roster "came around" in time to mate with the chicken before the chicken died? Same question for all male/female specie reproducing organisms. And people say I have faith but that my friends is a LOT of faith.
