Evolutuion is a load of crap. 4?

Question

I’m not even going to ask the obvious question like why are there still monkeys. But what I am going to ask is. Why aren’t there even Neanderthals or any other stage Mammals that have evolved from monkeys or from us, at least in the last twenty thousand years ? Something has to be changing, right.

Answer 1

Look, have you read the freakin' book? Darwin only made the commonplace observations: that a kind that doesn't reproduce is no longer a living kind; that a kind that reproduces continues to exist; that kinds reproduce imperfectly, and that allows a kind to change over time; that study of the reproduction of kinds suggests that something rather like a selection process can be supposed (although that unfortunate choice of words has led to all kinds of misunderstanding), etc. This is really a very modest claim. Back of the envelope stuff. Darwin did focus on 'adaptive' changes and tended to skip lightly over 'maladaptive' changes that are far more common. He did not supply the mechanism for variation, but only noted that variations are seen in species and supposed that a mechanism of variation existed and might be found later. And so on.

So, the theory of change that Darwin produced, the so-called 'theory of evolution' is scientific speculation, or a speculation of natural philosophy; an incomplete theory of change. It ain't crap. It might be wrong, but I find it adequate, and more satisfying than alternate theories of change, that introduce un-needed logical objects, such as 'gods' or 'purposive design'. (I will not say 'intelligent design'; that's a nonsense phrase).

Let me answer the last part of your question with an observation: human beings of 20,000 years ago had jaws. The fossil majority from that period have underbites; among the living today, the overbite is more common. Apparently, there IS some change going on. Darwinists can supply a plausible explanation; can you supply a plausible alternative explanation?

The first part of your question is troublesome. First off, I have no evidence that tells how, why, or exactly when so-called Neanderthals ceased to exist as a species. I don't mind that much, but it does bother me that 'no evidence' is taken as proof of theory. Secondly, I wonder at the suppostions: where in evolutionary theory is it suggested that every species is busily changing all the time? The shark species of today are very like those of hundreds of millions of years ago; and some species are as near 'unchanged' as makes no difference. Thirdly, I suspect that you don't understand how the evidences come to light; that is, you don't see that fossil remains that endure for myriads of years are not left routinely by the dead, not even by human (or semi-human) species whose behaviors often promote preservation of physical remains. How many of the tens of billions of dead hominids this planet has produced have left remains you can read? A few hundred, perhaps? A couple of thousand? (Excluding the very recent dead). This matters, in the case of your Neanderthals, as no one supposes their number to have been so large as a billion, or even tens of millions. The evidence might now be out of reach forever. What we have might be all we EVER have.

Now, if you want to reject "Evolutuion" [sic], that's fine with me. But you'll be happier if you find a sounder basis for rejection.

Evolution says only, "You might find the bones of 'intermediates' one day," (and sometimes that happens). It doesn't say "You will find the bones of intermediates."

Extinctions leave little evidence subsequent to the extinction; no surprise in that. The diminishing species, though . . . where would they have left their bones? A primatologist's life would be so much easier if primate behavior demanded that every corpse go into a high, cold, dry cave in a geologically stable formation.

But, hey, I'm just ramblin' here. Nasty headache, and the questions distract me from the pain. "Headache proves that the Intelligent Designer has a nasty streak" I might have said, but that'd be too combative.

Answer 2

For a species to split up in two lines, like the human/chimp common ancestor did, there must be some barrier that split the population up in two: when those two some groups haven't interbred for many thousands of generations there genomes will become exceedingly incompatible and eventually they will become different species. If there's no such barrier, incidental interbreeding between the two groups will prevent them from evolving apart.

The barrier between our ancestors and the chimp ancestor was, presumably, that we lived on the savanna while the chimps stayed in the forest. I think.

Why there are no other species evolved from our branch? Well, there used to be several species of Homo, but all have gone extinct except for the line that lead to Homo Sapiens. Not surprising, given the prevalence of genocide, that our ancestors killed of all the competitors (or maybe they died out for other reasons, I dono).

Last twenty thousands years? Come on, chimps and bonobo's split up some three million years ago and they are still so close that they can barely be considered different species.

Answer 3

What you need to do is actually study theories of evolution... Your "obvious" question would be easily answered...

Evolution doesnt happen over night (and 20 thousand years is "overnight" compared to the age of life on this planet), but over millions of years... Each generation is slightly different than the last genetically...

If you actually knew anything about underlying principles of science and biology, you would have a clue of what you were talking about...

But I'm assuming your a creationist (or intelligent design, God forbid), so there is no arguing with you... because you really are too blind and narrow-minded to understand how long it took for man to progress to its current state...

Also your idiotic comment about the "obvious" question I'll go ahead and answer for you... Monkeys are still around because we share a common ancestor... Our races split millions of years ago... Monkeys/Apes and Homonids are two completely seperate species...

So please, before you go spouting about things you don't have a clue about, do some research and stop being an uniformed, drain on human society...

Answer 4

Not necessarily...
Someone is doing a very bad job of teaching evolution to most people, as I hear these arguements, and they do not match with evolutionary theory. Genes of organisms within a population have diversity and influence how organisms appear and act. But there needs to be a "pressure" for the population as a whole to change - either:
(1) the environment changes in a way that both the population has the time and genetics (a mutation that can be passed from generation to generation) to adapt to;
(2) some mutation arises, so that certain individuals are both "different" and somehow doing better at passing on the mutated gene.
People have the terribly Victorian-era notion that "sucessful" means more intelligent or, well, more like us. It _only_ means being able to have more little copies of yourself survive to reproduce that the next individual. (As J.S. Haldane once quipped, "If there is a God, He has an inordinant fondness for beetles..." There certainly are more of them than there are of us.) And that has to do with the idea of being adapted to your environment.
The fact that there are forms that have evolved before or since does not preclude any species from existing - as long as it is still well adapted to _some_ environment that still exists. Being well adapted to an enviroment is the "pinnalce" of evolution (if there is one). (Keep in mind, as the environment changes, the definition of being "well adapted" changes - so evolution is trying to hit a moving target...)
Granted, there are still "stocastic" events...it's tough to be adapted for the eventuality of a meteor hitting your habitat. But, then again, that could just be seen as a new environmental pressure. (Even if it is one that leaves you with few options.)

Answer 5

Evolution is a simple concept that happens continually in a complex system. There are always natural and un-natural pressures affecting whether an organism successfully passes along its genes. The species that we’ve noticed in the fossil record but aren’t around anymore succumbed to something: disease, lack of proper habitat, famine, predators, being extremely unattractive to their mates- whatever made them unsuccessful in having offspring. If the system changes significantly, species will change. Who knows- maybe we’re the “stage mammals”?

Answer 6

"Why are there still monkeys" is an obviously SILLY question, not an obvious question. If you know so little about evolution to not instantly recognize why that's silly, you have a lot of learning to do.

And there are lots of currently living animals that share a common ancestor with us - the other primates.

See, we didn't evolve from Chimps or Gorillas or another ape that is currently alive - we are all cousins, with a common ancestor.

Answer 7

We didn't evolve "from" monkeys. We just share common ancestors. ANd yes, you need to read about it before you blindly criticize it. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you take a petri dish, grow bacteria, and use an antibiotic, 99% of them will die. But if you shut the dish and let them grow back, all of them that are alive will have that "once uncommon strain of resistance" against the antibiotic. This is evolution, at one time only a few of them had the trait, but since it allowed them to survive, it advanced through time while those that were unsuited to their environment died.

Answer 8

Instead of just deciding it's nonsense, why don't you try reading and understanding evolution before you criticise it?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Edit: @ Aztecologist (below) -- I think you could do with reading these too. Evolution is *not* random: the mutations are, but the selection pressure is not. I'm sure you'll find a response to that tired old argument in the links above.

Answer 9

Evolution all along the way depends on "chance" ...

By chance this hapend...or by chance that hapend...

Given 10 Billion years and ten billion chances can random tornadoes through a Junkyard Give you an A380?

if it can Then Evolution is true...

You need more faith to belive in Evolution than to Believe in God

Answer 10

How come when you put yellow paint and blue paint in a bucket and stir it, they both eventually disappear into green?