Do Xians really believe that evolution requires the extermination of the parent specie?

Question

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Logic is wasted on the illogical.

I wonder if some of you realize that within the evolutionary model, there are branches. Points at where several species spawn off of a common ancestor. Sometimes the parent continues along the path along side, but often times it is replaced by the more dominant specie. Ape is a general term referring to primates of which gorillas, chimpanzees and humans are a part of. At one point, most if not all primates evolved from a common ancestor.

In other words, the apes that we theoretically evolved from are NOT the apes you see today.

Get it?

Answer 1

No, nor should evolution require the extermination of God
(also the parent I AM).

Answer 2

Evolution doesn't require it but it is what usually happens. All the parent species of Homo Sapiens for example are extinct (otherwise we could just answer those questions about where the missing links are by taking the doubters to the zoo!).

Of course it depends upon what time-scale you're looking at. There has been variant evolution in man (hence we have different races). However as we haven't divided into more than one species it doesn't really make sense to talk of a "parent" species. Probably once that happens the new species will replace the old.

BTW 66666z : We did evolve from apes. We did not evolve from any modern species of ape. "Apes" are not a species. Apes are a group of species (of which group we are members).

Ook.

Answer 3

Fancier: "lots of those so suggested as "lacking hyperlinks" are truly totally form creatures." all of them are. each and every creature that has ever lived and reproduced has been a completely formed creature. Your choose for a 0.5-something 0.5-something else is a results of your lack of expertise approximately how evolution works, and is no longer something greater advantageous than a nicely-liked creationist straw guy. "lots of those "lacking hyperlinks" have been chanced on purely in fragments like purely a bite of a cranium or a the teeth and not an entire creature and by some ability scientists got here up with those creatures even nonetheless that they had no concept what creature it even grew to become into." Which fossils are you referencing particularly? What are your problems with the strategies used in comparing them and the conclusions reached? "whilst they got here across a the teeth that they suggested grew to become right into a humanlike creature purely it later grew to become out to belong to a pig." And? there have been a lot of faked fossils, which comprise some that have been speculated to be human ancestors. They have been all found out by ability of assessment with the plethora of exact human ancestor fossils by ability of scientists, no longer creationists with their arms of their ears screaming that it wasn't actual.

Answer 4

Some do and some don't, and as for the first person who answered, not trying to be offensive but...the Christian creation stories are also jumbled up and stuff...so it's the same for some Atheists who do not get Creationism...either that or they lack the mental jump that most Christians seem to have...dunno....anyway, like the question and I can't wait to see what some fundies will be saying...^_^

Answer 5

Dze, that's how we feel about your bible. "its a big jumbled up mess of nonsense that takes more faith than reason". At least evolution provides hard solid empirical evidence. You're not being consistent here, are you?

Answer 6

"Xians" don't really believe in creationism, genius. Take a look at some statistics. You are actually bright enough to associate a minority view with the majority. Congradulations! You broke the first rule of logic!

Answer 7

Nope. Only the fundies and the ignorant. Avoid them.

Answer 8

I just made that point in another "why do we still have apes question. Even if it WAS taught that we evolved "from" apes, which it isn't, it could have been parallel evolution.EDIT/////////////////////////// I understand that Anthonyp. I was referring to modern apes we still have today.

Answer 9

Apparently. They like to entertain illogical notions about evolution. Of course, their illogical religious beliefs serve to feed into that.

It should be strenuously noted that MOST christians do not disbelieve evolution. The catholic church, for example, embraces it, as it does most science.

Fundamentalist christians, however, confidently explain to me that the same laws of thermodynamics that permit snowflakes to form spontaneously, and crystals growth, and numerous other examples of molecular self organization PROHIBIT the self organization of amino acids (which has been observed in numerous natural environments).

Then there is the fossil record. Bacterial mats of stromatolites have been dated to billions of years old. The burgess shales reveal the existence of primitive marine organisms from more than half a billion years ago. I'd like evolution deniers to look up information on acanthostega, icthyostega, and rhipidistian lobe-finned lungfish. But they won't. Because evidence that conflicts with their predetermined religious faith is dangerous and, probably evil, or false. Nature, the handiwork of God, deceives us, inexplicably.

Creationists also fail to explain just how it is we can see supernova in distant galaxies. They propose changes in the speed of light which we cannot measure or detect, as though God insists upon deceiving us as to the true nature of reality.

You're absolutely right about logic. Trying to compel these folks to employ reason and rationality with regards to science is a fruitless waste of time. What I like to do instead is encourage others, not yet ensnared in mind numbing religion, to adopt early on a rational and reasoned approach to evaluating claims of science vs. faith.

The Dalai Lama suggests that faith that conflicts with reality ought to be carefully examined, and if necessary, abandoned. Amen to that!

Hermann (below) suggests that Darwin's work is incomplete. Charles Darwin died well over a century ago. Has there been no work on evolution since then? For example, have we discovered no new fossils? Have we not discovered genetics or mitochondrial DNA? Have we failed to establish cross correlations between molecular biology and phylogentics? Has geographic biodiversity failed to support the theory of evolution?

And what about time lines? Have geologists and geophysicists, working in concert with nuclear physicists. failed to convince us of vast ages for transitional fossils?

Another edit--O'Riley is right, and Elaine is sorely mistaken. I am confounded as to why these folks insist evolution disproves the existence of God. The Bible says God fashioned Adam out of clay, but my mother says I was NOT formed from riverbank mud. Employing their creative reasoning skills, I am compelled to conclude that my mother is a scripture denying atheist.

Answer 10

dze: you don't understand because you haven't really read up on it to get a good understanding of it in the first place. evolution makes perfect sense. yes, it is complicated, but reality is complicated.