- Mar 2017
That's not true and can't be proved.Each species is bound to its consistency and never beyond it.
As an example, American whitetail deer are different than they were 150 yrs ago. In response to hunting pressure of large individuals, deer got smaller by natural selection ... they evolved. There were plenty of people to watch it happen. They just don't kill them before they get big: they don't get big any more no matter how long you leave them alone.
The polar bear is Ursus maritimus. The grizzly (American brown bear) is Ursus arctos. These bears are significantly different in more than color and are separate species. One aspect of "species" is "can't interbreed." Under the stress of reduction of sea ice, polar bears are not only invading grizzly territory, they're interbreeding. A new species has been created before our eyes.
A number of insect species that were vulnerable to pesticides have evolved by natural selection to be resistant to them.
The only "consistency" in a species is if its environment remains constant. Remember my long jabbering about mutations? All animals have mutations all the time. There's no consistency in the kind of things that change. Most of them don't work out and the big picture of the animal remains the same, but tiny things are changing all the time. If species were "consistent", one major environmental change and they would all die because there would be no variation in the population.
Science has absolutely formed a timeline based on a number of radioactive elements with known rates of decay. This is not conjecture. Dates are calibrated using multiple techniques. If just one technique (everyone has heard about Carbon-14) is used, it means nothing. The radioactive techniques are compared to known terrestrial events and to each other. Sometimes organic material can be used, sometimes volcanic, sometimes extra-terrestrial.Science cannot assert when it started they merely extrapolated and formed a theory based on modern study. Despite the fact they alluded to millions of years prior. Their theory ought to be furnished by concrete proof not conjectures.
There is a layer of iridium surrounding the entire Earth. It's only about an inch thick in most places. Iridium does not occur in any quantity, by itself, on Earth except for that layer. Below the layer, lots of dinosaurs, above the layer they disappear. You may argue with the dates based on your beliefs, but that event is used to calibrate the dating techniques. They take a sample from a given level and use a technique to date it. Then they take the same sample and use another technique. Does it agree? Then they use a third technique ....
You may not like the results, but there is a hard timeline for evolution. We absolutely know the timeline for fossils ... more importantly, we know which came first.
As has been stated multiple times in this thread, man did not "come from" primates ... man is "related to" primates. This is a major point. If it were true that man "came from primates", you might have an argument. Its not, you don't. The only people who say "man came from primates" are Creationists trying to make an incorrect point.If man came from primates who created the primate show the proof of change of kind and not textbook theories.
How do the "other" men fit into your beliefs? There are at least 5 OTHER species of men that were all running around, interacting and breeding with each other during or at the end of the great Ice Age. Most humans today have 3% Neanderthal DNA. We don't have "fossils" for them, we have their actual bones ... and some hair. We can still extract their DNA. They weren't "animals" ... they were people: they made tools, made art, had religious beliefs.
It's been stated multiple times above. It is *EASY* to show the evolution from mammals that ran on four legs, to mammals that spent time in trees, to mammals that could stumble on two legs, to the only mammal that could stand and walk exclusively on two legs. There's no secret or hidden conspiracy here. Anyone can buy airplane tickets and visit the museums where these "hard facts" are on display for everyone to experience. There's no "missing link" ... there's a progression of one form to another.
Why aren't apes evolving into humans? You're just not getting this. Why would they? There's no "end target" of evolution. It's a process that responds to current events.Why aren't apes still evolving into humans? As stated there is no proof merely theories.
If all the people left central Africa, tore down their buildings, removed their fences and livestock, and ripped up their roads ... the environment in Rwanda would eventually return to natural conditions ... and gorillas would continue to evolve. "Human" is not an ideal state for anything. It's not a "goal", it's just what we happen to be. Gorillas would continue to evolve, but something would have to change pretty dramatically for them to evolve in our direction. Depending on food supply, they might get bigger ... or smaller ... stuff like that. They might develop resistance to some disease leftover by humans ... or not. This is how evolution works: not big things, little things ... lots of little things that accumulate over huge spaces of time.
This analogy doesn't work. Physics has nothing to do with biology in this case. I would point out that early trees were ferns and didn't have seeds. So where did seeds come from? They evolved ... we have the fossils to prove it.The law of physics suggest every action produces a action for every tree there is a seed.
I'm guessing here. You didn't say this, so I apologize if I'm wrong.
I'm guessing you believe humans are the finest example of the animal kingdom? They hold dominion over the Earth because they're special? If there was such a thing as evolution, every species would strive to be human?
This is a stumbling block. Because there's evidence over a long period of evolution, with many "mistakes" that just didn't work out, the idea that everything evolves towards a target just can't be supported. There were 5 or 6 species of humans at the same time. Which one of them was the target? Did the right one win?
As we can observe evolution AS IT HAPPENS, evolution is a process that helps an animal species survive changes in it's environment. A final, supreme target suggests knowledge of what the distant future would be (which supports determinism & destroys freewill), and what the perfect adaptation would be before there's any need for it.
Humans aren't the final great success of a complicated experiment. They're just one of the more successful animals ... today.
Beetles did pretty well too. There's more varieties of beetles than anything else on the planet.
Bacteria are wildly successful, and threaten our lives because of it.
You should read some of Koko the gorilla's conversations. Koko was 47yrs old when she died in June. She could talk in American Sign Language. She was a conscious, thinking being. She had abstract thought, loved to make puns & jokes, had compassion, and tolerance. She dearly loved her kitten, which was ill behaved & often scratched/bit her. Koko was NEVER mean to her. Why, exactly, would Koko need to evolve into something else?
It's not possible to scientifically support the thesis that man is the greatest animal that ever was and is the endpoint of some strategy. If man was the whole point, why waste time with all those dinosaurs?