For lunatics who don't "believe" in evolution.?

Question

So a hole in evolution is that we don't see innumerable transitional forms everywhere?

But... But you do see innumerable transitional forms everywhere.... Even if we don't use the fossil record, (which is millions, not thousands, of years old) it can be seen!!!

Bacteria, single celled organisms such as an amoeba, then multicellular organisms, then invertebrates like starfish and jellyfish, then vertebrates such as sharks with a cartiligous skeleton, then boney fish such as the coelcanth, then amphibians, then reptiles, then crosses between reptiles and mammals such as the duck billed platipus, then mammals, from mammals we have primates, such as the smaller monkies, then we have larger primates such as the great apes like chimpanzees, with whom we share a common ancestor, then we have a fossil record of Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, and then us....

Homo Sapiens Sapiens..... HUMANS....
How do you like them apples?

OK, regarding the use of the word lunatics, I just wanted people to read the question!

I'm actually a catholic so i'm a christian.

Hopefully though, the "Creator" would be able to spell paradigm shift.

Also, if you called me a chimpanzee on the street, you would be an appalling idiot of the highest order. I am a human. Would you call a cat a dog?! No!

If you said to me that I shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees however, i'd say, "well, duh!"

Answer 1

ripe and juicy..

Answer 2

It has been about how we interpret the data. I actually have an answer for what called the Geological Collumn (what you just said). If you read the book of Genesis, which is where christians get their basis for creationism, you will read about the global flood that happened. Yes, there is enough water on the earth to cover the entire earth. This is where the Geological column comes from. The creatures died they actually perished in that order. They all existed at the same time. An amoeba can't stand up to tidal wave or a flash flood as well as a chimpanzee can or even a human for that matter.
And I would actually admit say humans (Homo Sapiens) actually walked with the dinosuars. There is a couple different descriptions of dinosaurs in the Bible. There is one in Job 40.

How do you like them apples?
I'm honestly eager for your response.

Answer 3

Before we get to evolution there is a little something called abiogenesis in biology.

The complexity of the cell and the impossibility of it coming about by chance is pretty much a "nolo contendre" among science. The theories halfheartedly thrown out fall apart with any kind of scrutiny.

So, if we have to have a supernatural force to start life, why can't we have a supernatural force to create a wide variety of life over a long period of time.

Study the fossil record and you will quickly see why some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject came up with "punctuated equilibrium" and "hopeful monster" theory.
Because the fossil record supports changes happening instantaneous without transitional forms.

Maybe the record doesn't support a 6000 year old earth, but it also doesn't support Darwinian evolution.

Answer 4

The "there are no transitional forms" argument is astonishingly ignorant. For it to hold water, it'd have to be true that all members of a species are identical: that each human being is indistinguishable from each other human being, each dog indistinguishable from each other dog, etc.

What's really happening is that the creationists are so caught up in the labels that human beings use for the various organisms around us that we forget they're just labels. If you look at people, or dogs, or red oaks, or Monarch butterflies, you'll notice that they're all different: they're ALL "transitional forms". Not only are there transitional forms, you've never seen any living being that wasn't one.

This confusion about species is also what makes people believe the argument that while there is "microevolution" there is no "macroevolution". Of course the process underlying both of those is the same, and the only difference is that we refer to the results of "macroevolution" as new species.

Answer 5

I dont think you quite understand the nature of the argument nor evolution itself. In order for a monkey (in theory) to become a human, it has to go through millions of teeny tiny changes. In essence, it never stays the same species given the proper amount of time. And each variant species would have to be populous and have had to been around for a long time leaving just TONS of evidence within the layers of history.

Therefore when we argue about transitional models, we simply state that if evolution were self-evident, that would take finding layers upon layers of evidence (given the change is so slow) of species within transition and that type of evidence is absent. In short, the monkeys dont POOF one day and magically become cavemen. We shoudl have museums FILLED with transitional models coming out our ears. Yet in some of the OLDEST fossils we have ever found, we find life just as it exists today. Why?

Evolutionary theory is JUSt that, theory and a longshot at that. A persons sanity is hardly in doubt should one reject such a fantastic narrative designed to explain away the existence of God.

Answer 6

nice... I don't see why people can't believe in both (actually... one is more factually based and the other is spiritual, which is funny becasue there is actual documentation and historical records that we as a species have "evolved" over the many years we have been in existance.) Those who do get worked up over this until they are blue in the face really do appear as the very baboons they swear we are not akin to! (at least on that mental level... only more dumb!)

Answer 7

I've seen species go extinct.
I've seen species related to another.
But I have never seen a species morph into another species.
Maybe if you can evolve into a chimpanzee then I will believe.

The hole is science is the Paradyme Shift.
That's a fancy name for saying, 'Oh ummm...all the crap we said was fact yesterday has been tossed out the window by a new discovery. Here is the new bottom line backed in science fact!...err at least until the next paradyme shift.'

I can only hope the creator of the universe does not have a paradyme shift.

Answer 8

interesting ,,, you share a common ancestor with the great apes like chimpanzees.

so if i see you walking down the street and say "Hey chimpanzee, how u doin' dude?!" would you be so happy for calling you such a name? i think you'll be happy , unless you ashamed of your ancestors ?

Answer 9

Personally, I like them apples just fine. But for those who don't like them apples, do you think you are going to change their minds with one question on Yahoo? Their minds are made up. When a person decides that they know all there is to know on a subject, any further learning is impossible. Peace to you.

Answer 10

How can one thing change into something totally different, even over long periods of time? Where did the bacteria come from? They couldn't have just suddenly formed out of nothing.

Answer 11

Hey. Did you base your question on the answer you gave me on my question?

Evolution is not fact. Facts are proven through observations and repeating.

No one has ever repeated evolution.
If you believe that we evolved, then you must be a little "racist".
Evolution implies that races evolved from other races, meaning that one race is better than one another intelectually, or physically. People like you are against america. All men were created equal and evolution supposably states that all races are not equal. So if you are saying you are a pro evolutionist, your implying that you think that equality doesn't really exist and you race may be better than my race. So are you a racist anti-american?

How do you like them apples?