Did Evolution Really Happen?

[Kung Fu]

Exactly, our primate cousins brains never had to evolve like us. They were thriving just fine in their own environments.

Could you perhaps prove that to us?

What about endangered species how come they haven't evolved?

 

[Loki]

Could you perhaps prove that to us?

What about endangered species how come they haven't evolved?

Most endangered/extinct species are killed off very rapidly, either from a sudden change in environment (usually our fault), natural disaster, or over hunting (usually by us). It takes hundreds of thousands of years for this sort of evolution to take place so they just aren't given enough time (or relatively any time) to adapt and change.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

What about endangered species how come they haven't evolved?

Most endangered species are endangered as a result of the effect humanity has had on their environment. Our rapidly advancing intellect has led to unprecedented success, and increasingly we find ways around the usual checks and balances on how many of us can exist in any one area. The human population has absolutely exploded in only a few thousand years as a result, and this population explosion is accelerating profoundly the better at staying alive we get. In the past hundred and fifty years in particular, human population growth has blown the roof off, and that in tandem with the environmental impact of the technologies which facilitate it have put profound stress on ecosystems.

Evolution is a process which typically sees meaningful change happen over thousands if not millions of years, and a sudden, catastrophic event can wipe out entire species who aren't already in a position to survive them; they just don't have time to adapt. This is what we believe happened to the dinosaurs; those in a position to survive adapted over time, but many more species were simply wiped out, as they weren't able to adapt in time.

Currently, humanity is the sudden, catastrophic event testing the limits of species all over the planet, and unfortunately, just as with the dinosaurs, many are failing outright to adapt. Some on the other hand are adapting quite handily, and find us only beneficial to their survival as we eliminate their natural predators and competitors.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

Plus one must consider that species that were human like, but not as advanced were probably wiped out by us.

This is also an extremely important point, and there's a lot of evidence to this effect as well. When people ask 'how come no other primate developed in this direction?' the answer is they absolutely did; they just failed, or were wiped out. There's actually fair deal of evidence to suggest early humanity and neanderthals interacted a fair deal, and though sometimes at odds were also sometimes cooperative, though I think it highly likely that exploitation was a factor. Some theorize with supporting evidence that it was cannibalism that wiped out the neanderthals; that they spent too much of the ice-age eating each-other, which causes serious disease in primates.

 

[A.J.]

Devo, definitely.... Evo, no
http://barbwire.com/2015/10...

What's the standard and precedent for so many years, unless you know the age (an observable, testable attribute) of something in measurable real time, it's all assumptions, and you know what they say of the folly to assume

 

[Aero]

I believe in the cannibalism theory. But I think it was more than just those damn winters. I think there may of been a lot of species that were more animal than man. But I think their real problem was lack of variety in sexual mates. They just couldn't reproduce fast enough to develop anything and probably had to roam around a lot. Taking what they could, but ultimately they were outpaced and left behind.

 

[grateful servant]

I believe in the cannibalism theory. But I think it was more than just those damn winters. I think there may of been a lot of species that were more animal than man. But I think their real problem was lack of variety in sexual mates. They just couldn't reproduce fast enough to develop anything and probably had to roam around a lot. Taking what they could, but ultimately they were outpaced and left behind.

interesting.

 

[Aero]

interesting.

Well that's the point of sexual reproduction. To create something new, not just a carbon copy. It makes sense to me, humans that were most like each other interacted and thrived for the most part. Not unlike society today, but the outcasts typically don't starve.

 

[TMT]

This is also an extremely important point, and there's a lot of evidence to this effect as well. When people ask 'how come no other primate developed in this direction?' the answer is they absolutely did; they just failed, or were wiped out. There's actually fair deal of evidence to suggest early humanity and neanderthals interacted a fair deal, and though sometimes at odds were also sometimes cooperative, though I think it highly likely that exploitation was a factor. Some theorize with supporting evidence that it was cannibalism that wiped out the neanderthals; that they spent too much of the ice-age eating each-other, which causes serious disease in primates.

Some were absorbed, Europeans have small percentages of Neanderthal DNA.

 

[mecca]

Some were absorbed, Europeans have small percentages of Neanderthal DNA.

True, why only Europeans though?

 

[Trenton]

True, why only Europeans though?

As afar as I'm aware Neanderthals lived in Scandanavian and German land when they existed. So if humans mated with them successfully, it makes sense Europeans could have their dna.

Neanderthals don't appear to have lived in Asia or Africa. I'm not sure about Russia or North America.

 

[TMT]

True, why only Europeans though?

Well I was a bit wrong, only Africans have none, but Europeans had the most contact with them so that's why it's higher.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

 

[Mr.Grieves]

Devo, definitely.... Evo, no
http://barbwire.com/2015/10...

What's the standard and precedent for so many years, unless you know the age (an observable, testable attribute) of something in measurable real time, it's all assumptions, and you know what they say of the folly to assume

"If it didn't happen in my lifetime it didn't happen at all" is what you're saying? As that's the only access to real time a human being has.

 

[Kung Fu]

The evolution of one species to another is untestable since it supposedly happens very slowly. All that is if it even happened considering there's not a shred of evidence for it as seen by the lack of physical evidence.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

The evolution of one species to another is untestable since it supposedly happens very slowly. All that is if it even happened considering there's not a shred of evidence for it as seen by the lack of physical evidence.

There's an abundance of physical evidence Kung, both in the fossils of creatures long gone and in the creatures we can see all around us in life, both in the evidence of our own animal ancestry present in the fetus, to our wielding of the evolutionary process to create entirely new breeds of domesticated animal. Just look at these adorably awkward critters! Has evidence ever been this cute?

The problem is Kung, you're generally unwilling to accept evidence as evidence in all things. Any evidence provided you either declare not good enough for your supremely exacting scientific standards, or counter with your admission that you don't believe in science at all/that scientists are generally deceivers. It's a weird, somewhat self-defeating coin to toss.

 

[Kung Fu]

The problem is Kung, you're generally unwilling to accept evidence as evidence in all things. Any evidence provided you either declare not good enough for your supremely exacting scientific standards, or counter with your admission that you don't believe in science at all/that scientists are generally deceivers. It's a weird, somewhat self-defeating coin to toss.

I come from a family full of people who work in the field of mathematics/physics and biology so I'm quite familiar with what is considered as strong evidence vs someone grasping at straws.

I don't believe that all scientists are deceivers but what I do believe is that not all scientists conduct their studies and experiments without any bias. As long as money is involved we will never truly have real scientific progress in the name of science.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

I come from a family full of people who work in the field of mathematics/physics and biology so I'm quite familiar with what is considered as strong evidence vs someone grasping at straws.

I don't believe that all scientists are deceivers but what I do believe is that not all scientists conduct their studies and experiments without any bias. As long as money is involved we will never truly have real scientific progress in the name of science.

Do you... spend any time with these people? I'm sorry Kung, but we've had discussions in other threads, and you've never espoused a scientific principal to my recollection, never advocated a scientific position, nor made any post I've seen which suggested a scientific education. I believe even gravity you called into question.

 

[A.J.]

"If it didn't happen in my lifetime it didn't happen at all" is what you're saying? As that's the only access to real time a human being has.

Kinda, I'm saying you need a standard or a litmus. We can verify ages of things of known existence. Our confirmation bias should be based on reality. You can only go back so far to get verified standard or model to measure against. Anything further than that would have to be deemed suspect guesswork

 

[A.J.]

There's an abundance of physical evidence Kung, both in the fossils of creatures long gone and in the creatures we can see all around us in life, both in the evidence of our own animal ancestry present in the fetus, to our wielding of the evolutionary process to create entirely new breeds of domesticated animal. Just look at these adorably awkward critters! Has evidence ever been this cute?

The problem is Kung, you're generally unwilling to accept evidence as evidence in all things. Any evidence provided you either declare not good enough for your supremely exacting scientific standards, or counter with your admission that you don't believe in science at all/that scientists are generally deceivers. It's a weird, somewhat self-defeating coin to toss.

Not true, it's all preassumed interpretation of the evidence and major leaps in logic that runs against testable methods. What we have are jumps to conclusions based on prefered secular ideology, scientism and naturalism. Lots of skewed fabrication undergirds ToE.... ToE requires too many absurd leaps of faith to be considered science based

 

[Kung Fu]

Do you... spend any time with these people? I'm sorry Kung, but we've had discussions in other threads, and you've never espoused a scientific principal to my recollection, never advocated a scientific position, nor made any post I've seen which suggested a scientific education. I believe even gravity you called into question.

Of course, I do they're family, I kind of have too.

You're recollection must be pretty bad because I have never discussed the topic of gravity or in case you bring it up, flat Earth on this iteration or the last of the VC forums.