If cars evolved from horseless carriages, then why are there still horseless carriages..?

Question

If christianity evolved from judaism, then why is there still judaism..?

If electron microscopes evolved from magnifying glasses, then why are there still magnifying glasses..?

If homo sapiens sapiens shared a common ancestor with the great apes, then why do creationists and christian fundies ask: "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys..?"..?

Just for the one eyed, narrow minded and scientifically illiterate religious fruitcakes among us, evolution is about diversification, not instantly morphing into another form.

If you're going to attack science, then attack REAL science, but don't make up a fictional account to then tear it down with infantile analogies, dishonest misrepresentation and childlike logic..

Bracing myself for some completely ignorant, whacky, uneducated and illinformed responses, and no doubt outright lies....
Remember, dishonesty might cost you your eternal salvation..!

Thanks socratic pig, but I just said that..

Drew, what about microorganisms and archaebacteria. I think you're missing a few important concepts here..

gotta be kidding, science doesn't "prove" anything, it describes the natural world.
The world was billions of years old before Adam and Eve were conceptualised..

budleit2, like I said, infantile and ill informed analogies. You're towing the fundie party line, but you actually know nothing. Your imaginary anthropocentric pedistal is a false and self serving one.

Thanks Claire, I think you missed the tone of my question..

Endurokart, thanks for splitting that all important hair for us. So microscopes must still be magnfying glasses then..

Arnon, thanks for you "informed" input. The evidence for evolution is clear, unambigious and compelling, and more corroborative data is streaming in daily.
It may only be a hypothesis for you because you are so scientifically illiterate, ignorant and illinformed, but those with a higher level of learning and a higher knowledge than you know better.
Embrace the ignorance and denial Arnon.

Ok budleit2, look for my next question, and feel free to enlighten us all with your sheer wealth of scientific knowledge, and show us all where these studies are flawed without infantile analogies and childlike logic..

Crysslyn, you have merely made a series if incorrect statements and false assumptions.
Science has NO AGENDA for or against ANY religion, PERIOD..!
Evolution is not "just a theory", it is a "scientific theory", there's a BIG difference. Are you aware of other words which have multiple meanings, such as ball, creation etc..?
A very flawed argument Crysslyn..

Answer 1

Because cars are horseless carriages.

Christianity was started by Christ. Judaism persists because some of the Jews refused to accept Him as their messiah.

Electron microscopes did not evolve from magnifying glasses. They are totally different in function and construction.

We have not determined with factual certainty the genetic relationship between man and ape. That is simply a belief system for some.

Just for the one-eyed, self-aggrandizing and personally pompous atheistic eggheads, evolution is not fact yet and barely a theory but more a hypothesis. So until you prove it scientifically let's just leave it there.

Ditto on your attacks.

Thank you for your prejudice.

Answer 2

just because something evolved from something else does not mean the original has to be terminated. The only things that are no more are the ones that really don't work or can't survive. True, the electron microscope might have derived from magnifying glasses, but in certain cases magnifying glasses are more handy, less expensive, more practical, etc. regarding your horseless carriage example, what few still run around are slowly diminishing, and most of them are on display in museums. judaism is not extinguished because it is a religion; as long as people still believe in it, it cannot be "replaced". and homo sapiens did not evolve from monkeys. monkeys and homo sapiens share a common ancestor, but the two branched off quite some time ago.

Answer 3

I think you are taking what is considered more a joke about evolution than a plausible argument against evolution. I am not a religious nut so don't try and use that as your argument against the following statement. If evolution could be proved as fact, we wouldn't still be debating it. It's just a theory. I have always wondered why scientist are so hateful about Christian belief in God. They scoff at concepts like faith. A scientist must have faith their theory until they prove it. Well, you prove the evolution of man and disprove the existence of God, then I will gladly tell all the people who say "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" to stop making fun of evolutionists.

Edit:

EjC11...
Since you are obviously to obtuse, I will be very clear. I was kidding. However, I do believe science is similar to religion. I never said science was investigating the supernatural. I was saying that although science has many unproven theories, they still have faith they will one day prove their hypothesis. Faith is defined as:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Faith is a belief in something which can not be proven
Science does not have definitive proof of evolution. I never said they wouldn't get it, but until they do, stop arguing as if evolution is proven fact.

Evolutionist (by evolutionist, i mean someone who believes in the theory of evolution) do scoff at creationism, and I realize not all people of science are non-religious. I was answering a question that stereotyped people of faith, so I felt no need to keep this type of generalization out of my response. I am simply saying, until someone proves one and disproves the other, no one is wrong. So EjC11, I hope you your little tirade made you feel better. I will move on now since I am pretty sure you won't be resolving this issue anytime soon.

Answer 4

i believe we all had a common ancestor too- humans, monkeys, cats, dogs, etc all have the same common ancestor- dirt.

edit- i apologize for the nature of my first response. due to the tone, i saw your question as trolling (which it is), and so i answered with a sarcastic remark. it was a poor decision on my part to respond in such a way. however, i don't believe i'm missing any important concepts.

i've studied evolutionary theory a bit, especially since converting (we all want to be sure, after all), and find that i agree with it on *some* points. someone stated that while the theory of microevolution seems to have been proven true so far, that of macroevolution is far from being a perfect science, and that answerer was correct. the evidence of microevolution seems to be more than obvious in the way viruses adapt and become immune to certain treatments and medicines. the theory of macroevolution, on the other hand, is based on a lot of assumptions, and employs several logical fallacies. hasty generalization, begging the question, misuse of authority, argument to future, appeal to the people, hypothesis contrary to fact, and chronological snobbery are among these fallacies.

Answer 5

Keep fighting the good fight, brother.

Edit: Sorry, saw a few responses that need some enlightenment...

>>that_guy_drew: You make the debate over evolution sound like a philosophical argument and not a debate over the evidence. Macroevolution (I'd like to know how you define it; I'd call it the same thing as speciation) can be caused by the same mechanisms as microevolution (again, I'd like to know your definition; I usually refer to it as adaptation without speciation)--that is, reproduction, mutation, and natural selection affecting gene frequencies. You can see it in the lab with microorganisms, and just because you can't see it in larger organisms just means it's very difficult to set up a lab to run such an experiment (or to run any field observation) for hundreds or thousands of years.

>>budleit2--You wouldn't expect to see a leap in one generation from animal to human conscience. In fact, that would be one great blow against the theory of evolution. You would see it in a number of steps, if you could have observed the Homo genus (and related genera) over the past 250,000-2,000,000 years. And "animal to human consience" really doesn't have all that much bearing on speciation. You just need to observe the fact that a species that arises from an older species can't interbreed with that older species. You can see this with ring species.

>>Crysslynn: There is not a debate within the scientific community on whether or not microevolution or macroevolution occurs (well, there is a little, but its primarily over the details, not on the overall soundness of the theory). The only real "debate" is from religious fundamentalists that interpret the theory as some sort of attack against whether or not there is a God. Not so. The theory of evolution is entirely independent of anything supernatural, just as every scientific theory is, because science does not investigate the supernatural. I'll repeat that so that it sinks in...science does not investigate the supernatural. Science does not say anything for or against the existence of any supernatural deity, because it doesn't investigate the existence of any supernatural deity.

And there are many scientists that do not "scoff at concepts like faith". In fact, since at least the 1950's, around 40% of all scientists that accept evolution have claimed to have some sort of religious affiliation.

And there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", unless you mean someone that accepts the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the scientific data. This acceptance does not indicate any theistic beliefs.

Re-edit: Crysslynn--Wasn't on a tirade. If I was on a tirade, I would have typed in all capital letters to let you know I wanted some attention. I was just trying to educate, since many of those who don't accept evolution don't have any idea what evolution actually is.

Yeah, OK, I didn't get that you were kidding, my sarcasm radar was off at the time.

But I respectfully disagree on the similarity between religion and science. I don't have faith in science, because I know that science has evidence to back it up. Scientists do not have faith that their hypotheses will be be proven true, but that the truth about the natural world will reveal itself through their investigations. Good science means no presupposition; good religion absolutely relies on presuppositions.

And, no science does not have proof for evolution, only evidence. There are only three things that evolution rests on: reproduction, mutation, and natural selection. All three of these things occur in all living organisms (unless there is some sort of anomaly). Those three things are the only evidence needed for the theory of evolution to be sound. Of course, other branches of science have provided evidence, and they almost all lead in the same direction; this is called convergent evidence, and only strengthens the theory.

There are other theories that could be possible, and if a different one pans out with some new evidence that hasn't been discovered yet, so be it. It will just mean that humans will have a better understanding of the world. I guess I would have to stop being an "evolutionist". Oh well.

However, scientists don't scoff at creationism or intelligent design because they are religious or theistic; they do so because neither is good science. Both rely on the supernatural for explanations, and, as I tried to state before, science does not investigate the supernatural, at least not very well, not yet. That is one of the primary reasons creationism and ID are not good science.

Anyway, there is no tirade intended here (or previously), just education. And, no, it doesn't make me feel at all good, frankly. If I've offended you, there was no intent of that either.

Answer 6

Which one is your question? I guess I will attack real science then since I don't know which question to answer. micro evolutions has been shown to be true. Macro evolution has never come close to being proven. Please show me where there has been an evolutionary leap from animal to human conscience. No animal besides humans have a conscience. The bear does not know it is wrong to kill a camper in his tent. Only humans have this ability. Also no animal has the ability to ponder or invent. Can a bear say in its mind "hum I don't like living in this forest I think I will invent a car and move to the city". Show me proof of macro evolution animals gaining a conscience.

then educate me prove macro evolution
You call me infintile but you are the one calling me names. You are so smart and educated come on quit stalling and prove macro evolution to me.

What do you think using the horseless carriage analogy is

still waiting are those studies you mention on macro evolution? I believe in micro evolution.

Answer 7

There aren't any more horseless carriages really unless they are static. Most carriages have horses or at least mules these days. Cars didn't evolve from horseless carriages, cars were and are horseless carriages without the horse of course. The real genius is in the evolution from horse to internal combustion engine..

Answer 8

It's all about ignorance and stupidity. For some reason, these religious types and the zealous scientific types can't seem to accept that these are two different ways of looking at the world. One used science and logic, the other relies on faith. The very essence of faith means not questioning and not requiring evidence. Where it all goes wrong is when the religious types try to make up evidence to counter what they percieve as blasphemy. Then the scientists try to tear down the religous faith-based model by asking for evidence. While I personally believe in the scientific method and feel compelled to only accept things if they have substantial evidence to back them up, I also understand that to the religious crowd, such a point of view is invalid. For us, we question, we look at the world as a puzzle, or a mystery. We study it, we ask questions about, sometimes we find answers. The faith based people on the other hand don't ask questions. To them, the world is their gift from their deity and that's about all they care to know unless their gods tell them otherwise. What we, the scientific community, must learn to do is to leave them, the religious faith based people, to their own beliefs and realize that logical scientific arguments are wasted on them. They don't know the rules and when made aware of them, they bend them and pick and choose the ones that suit them.

Answer 9

Well, the theory isn't that humans evolved from monkeys, rather that humans and apes share a common hominid ancestor.

Answer 10

it's because there's always that one horseless carriage [yes herbie the love bug, i AM talking about you!] who thinks he's better than those newfangled cars and refuses to assimilate, and he goes out and inseminates as many assembly lines as he can to propegate his inferior species.

it was different for magnifying glasses, tho. people who couldn't read small letters refused to accept the obviously superior microscope, and perpetuated an abomination against science.

these are not lies!