First, I wish
no one had offered any answers to your question, before you responded. You made one assertion that was flatly ridiculous –
How does it explain why species X forked at some point in time and one group dropped 90% of its body hair, became physically weaker yet intellectually stronger, whereas the rest became some other variant of primate? What plausible scenario explains how this sort of adaptation took place? I know it is simply taken for granted that it must have happened, but nobody has actually explained it, other than to say that is how it must have happened since the alternative (Genesis) is just a myth.
I literally cannot believe anyone who has read any text on evolution would make this assertion. Nobody has actually explained it??? This statement of yours was a
major red flag. My bet is that you haven’t read one text written by a scientist explaining the theory of evolution. My bet is that you’ve read rebuttals against evolution written by religionists, and that is where your background information comes from. You can easily prove me wrong by sharing which texts you’ve read on the subject.
You then amended your ridiculous assertion:
I have heard assertions but nothing that sounds remotely plausible. From what I can tell it seems to be mostly a circular argument that takes evolution for granted, and then assumes this must account for the existence of life in all its varieties.
Ok, now you’ve heard (read?) assertions, but nothing that sounds remotely plausible.
Give your major, ridiculous gaffe, I think the conversation should have stopped there before you shared just which assertions you’ve heard about, but are not remotely plausible. The fact that you have not shared which assertions you’ve heard about but are not remotely plausible makes me think that you’re speaking out of ignorance, that you made a huge gaffe due to that ignorance, and now are just CYA.
Now here are the nuances that you seem oblivious to, and have declared basic contradictions:
Schmo:
One of my favorites is that "we came from apes." Talk about a fundamental misunderstanding. Having a common ancestor as apes is not the same as apes turning into people.
You then shared your photo as if that contradicted Schmo’s assertion. Excuse me? What the heck are you talking about? So the theory of evolution does NOT assert we “have a common ancestor” which is different than “apes turning into people”? This is the nuance that seems to have totally escaped you. Due to the fact that this nuance escaped you, others tried to clarify.
Then you clarified with this stunner:
I'm just saying the "we came from apes" assumption is a natural one to make and it is usually taken for granted. Even if we just say apes and man came from the same source, one needs to explain why humans evolved into humans whereas apes stayed the same.
Oh. My. God. Please tell me you haven’t read any books on evolution, because if you have actually read books written by actual scientists who understand the theory, and this is STILL what you took out of it, the alternative to ignorance can only be stupidity.
Others still kindly and patiently tried to help you out:
The dude:
Apes didn't stay the same.
Moniker:
We did evolve from an ape-like ancestor -- yet, modern apes are not what we evolved from. I think someone looking at that illustration could jump to that conclusion even though it's faulty. I think, though, when you enter into a debate (those that do so -- not you) would know a bit more about the theory, though, then to start out with the old line that we evolved from apes. No, we didn't.
See how these kind folks are trying to help you out? We didn’t evolve from apes. That insinuates we evolved from the modern ape, which your assertion that “apes stayed the same” demonstrates. We evolved from an ape-like common ancestor.
Then you trot out this argument, which, as EA demonstrated, even creationists label “truly bad arguments”.
Dart:
And if apes and humans all come from the same source, what prevented the current species of apes from evolving into humans? I'm trying to understand the logic here.
You could try to understand the logic by picking up a book actually written by a scientist who is qualified to actually explain evolution. I simply cannot believe you have done that, based on the ridiculous statements you’ve been making on this thread.
Patient posters still try to help you:
Silentkid
Why don't all fish look like sharks if they shared a common ancestor?
Natural selection acts on different populations in different ways. It does so without an end result in mind. You need to start at the population level, take into account random genetic mutations, systems of mating, genetic drift, gene flow, and the effect of selection on that population. You need to account for forces that drive speciation.
dude responded in the way you later declared constituted a contradiction with tarski:
dartagnan wrote:
Quote:
Apes didn't stay the same.
How do we know?
To answer, I need to understand which ape we are speaking about. There are two speices of chimps, pan trogdolytes and pan paniscus. Plus two species of gorilla, two speices of orangutan, and about a dozen species of gibbon -- these are all classified as apes. In the cartoon version of evolution, from which one of these "apes" did humans evolve?
Quote:
And if apes and humans all come from the same source, what prevented the current species of apes from evolving into humans? I'm trying to understand the logic here.
I can't answer your non sequitur.
What prevents us from evolving into chimpanzees? Can't answer it? Then evolution must be false! LOL
Your question was a non sequitur due to the fact that your language is, at best, extraordinarily sloppy, and at worse (which is the more probable choice, given your subsequent ridiculous statements), based on a completely fallacious and, frankly, idiotic notion: that humans evolved from an ape, who didn’t change, and is now the modern ape.
Again: Oh. My. God.
Tarski very patiently overlooked your sloppy language and ridiculous assertions and offered to teach you the basic premises of evolution. You then declared Tarski’s willingness to do so a contradiction to dude’s label of non sequitur. No, it wasn’t. Tarski is being a teacher and patiently overlooking the obvious deficiencies in the pupil’s understandings, and taking it back to square one to straighten it out.
Others, again, kindly stepped in, offering you links to sites with explanations. For heaven’s sake, EA linked to a site that explicitly decries your specific ridiculous argument.
EA added this:
I think it is fair to say we came from apes. While it is unlikely any modern ape is part of an ancestor population of humans, the common ancestors we share almost certainly would be classified as apes.
And you pretend that this is a basic contradiction to what other posters have been saying. The only poster this contradictions is YOU, dart.
Dart’s victory speech:
Some Schmo: "One of my favorites is that 'we came from apes.' Talk about a fundamental misunderstanding."
EAllusion: "I think it is fair to say we came from apes."
Who needs creationists when, given half the chance, evolution fans will disagree amongst themselves.
That you think Schmo and EA contradict each other betrays that you have completely missed the nuances and details of the statements people have been making. Each of the posters who have kindly and patiently attempted to correct your outrageous misunderstandings of evolution have been providing those details and nuances. I have cited them above. They escape you. To quote from the site EA linked, which you really should have read:
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.
It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?”
Even AFTER EA shared this link, you embarrass yourself by stating:
I do not see how natural selection explains why humans evolved into humans from an ape-like species while others did not.
The fact that posters are still willing to help you instead of digging in their heels and demanding you explain your previous ridiculous statements speaks to their generosity and willingness to try to help you learn. I am simply not that generous.
Frankly, I don’t think you deserve their generosity, particular after all these attempts at answers and explanations, you declare:
Still no direct answers.
Oh. My. God.
The rest of you enjoy yourselves. You’re tormenting yourselves for no apparent reason, because
nothing you say to dart will get through to him. None of you have given any direct answers yet.
I keep repeating myself: Oh. My. God.
Aside from that, I do want to thank Dart for providing several examples of tarski’s sig line (she says modestly). J
With the exception of Tarski, this is essentially how religious people act among themselves when they outnumber critics who dare question a presupposition they hold sacrosanct, even though it becomes perfectly obvious none of them can prove what they're saying. I see frustration within a different kind of flock, but no less religious. I don't see confidence, I see arrogance. I don't see detailed scientific proofs, I see a lot of speculation presented as a matter of fact.
I mean just look at what's taking place here. I'm not too proud to admit I don't understand all of it, but you guys are more than happy to point out any "ignorance" or "miseducation" on my part simply because I don't immediately convert to your belief system at the slightest effort by your esteemed missionar, er, I mean scientists.
I admit I love it when theists do this. It’s second only to the “no atheists in foxholes” assertion, which basically admits the driving force behind religion is emotional comfort. Some theists just don’t seem to feel it when that bullet they just fired from their own gun penetrates their own foot.