That is why people ask the question: “If man evolved from apes, how can there still be apes?”
You appear to be referring to adaptation or microevolution. The missing link idea does not apply to microevolution.
Macroevolution = a change at or above the level of species or a change in a species over time into another
Microevolution = a change below the level of species
So the missing link is the missing macroevolution species between the most evolved ape species and man. The thousands of adaptations (microevolution) that lead up to that point would not be what is missing.
[/quote]
Um, we are apes, our closest cousins are the chimpanzees and we separated from them a few million years ago?
There are several hominides slowly becoming less “ape” and more human-like with a well documented fossil record.
You think macroevolution is different than microevolution, that it somehow goes “pop” and a human being is born from of a chimp?
We have seen very wide ranges of adaptation in low life-span/high population species of insects the last 100-150 years. The fact that these are evolving is not inside the reach of any doubt.
[/quote]
Adaptation or microevolution is not evolution in the broad sense. Once the adoption causes the fly to turn into something else, then call me. But other than that it is still just adaptation within a species.
[quote]
2) Fossils aren’t the rule, they are the exeption. You seem to WANT every speciment of every species to be fossilized. That is just… wrong.[/quote]
No, I’m not looking to the fossil record to prove anything, you are. You are the one saying that Macroevolution has been observed and happens all the time and you have no proof of that. There are adaptations that have been seen in most all species, but none that have caused one species (complex organisms) into another. Does that mean evolution is false? No, it just means there is not enough info to call it fact.
[quote]orion wrote:
You think macroevolution is different than microevolution, that it somehow goes “pop” and a human being is born from of a chimp?
[/quote]
I don’t think science has the answer to that question. In theory, the mechanisms would be the same. But in reality, microevolution is commonly observed, macroevolution is not. So they could be the same or very different, there is not enough information to know for sure at this time.
People ignorant about evolution can educate themselves on the web ( The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs is a good starting point) or in a library. Evolutionary theory is not a secret held by a hidden cabal. There are tons of papers, books, articles, etc. available to anyone interested.
People unwilling to educate themselves about the actual theory, but who still insist in debating it with old, tired, thousand-times refuted arguments are simply stupid and won’t be convinced by anything you say. There not interested in the actual theory, not interested in science’s quest for truth and understanding of nature, the world, life and the universe. They simply want to attack anything that threatens their beliefs, like kids throwing tantrums if you try to pull their blankie from them.
It’s your time, but realize that even if you add another 1000 pages to this thread, those same people will still remain unconvinced and repeat the same nonsensical arguments you’re already getting.
[/quote]
I like, and I see you’re a reader As it is stated in conclusion to most of the writings, it comes down to a question of belief; you either do or you don’t. Some can be ignorant and try to beat up everyone around them with their ‘arguements’ and some choose to keep this knowledge respectfully to themselves.
Like you said, the knowledge is available and plentiful. Might I suggest “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins. Or hell any Richard Dawkins book will reveal far more than this thread. Oh Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett as well.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
You think macroevolution is different than microevolution, that it somehow goes “pop” and a human being is born from of a chimp?
I don’t think science has the answer to that question. In theory, the mechanisms would be the same. But in reality, microevolution is commonly observed, macroevolution is not. So they could be the same or very different, there is not enough information to know for sure at this time.
[/quote]
But this is not how it is done.
Nothing is ever proven, wrong theories are falsified.
The theorie of evolution has not been falsified.
Therefore it still stands, in a world where “theory” is all a young idea can
strive to be.
The birds they sang
at the break of day
Start again
I heard them say
Don’t dwell on what
has passed away
or what is yet to be.
Ah the wars they will
be fought again
The holy dove
She will be caught again
bought and sold
and bought again
the dove is never free.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.
We asked for signs
the signs were sent:
the birth betrayed
the marriage spent
Yeah the widowhood
of every government –
signs for all to see.
I can’t run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they’ve summoned, they’ve summoned up
a thundercloud
and they’re going to hear from me.
Ring the bells that still can ring …
You can add up the parts
but you won’t have the sum
You can strike up the march,
there is no drum
Every heart, every heart
to love will come
but like a refugee.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.
That’s how the light gets in.
That’s how the light gets in.
[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
You think macroevolution is different than microevolution, that it somehow goes “pop” and a human being is born from of a chimp?
I don’t think science has the answer to that question. In theory, the mechanisms would be the same. But in reality, microevolution is commonly observed, macroevolution is not. So they could be the same or very different, there is not enough information to know for sure at this time.
But this is not how it is done.
Nothing is ever proven, wrong theories are falsified.
The theorie of evolution has not been falsified.
Therefore it still stands, in a world where “theory” is all a young idea can
strive to be.
[/quote]
Yes, I agree. I didn’t mean to imply that this disciple of science proves it’s hypotheses as a means to prove the theory. So you are correct in that it has not been proven false and therefore stands as viable theory. However, the hypothesis that states aliens from another world come to earth and probe people’s butt-holes has also not been falsified. So we could say that that theory also stands.
As you can tell, my problem is not with the theory, it is with the process. When there is not enough information or limited ability to test any idea it stands as viable. So using this same methodology we would have to say that God does exist, because that idea has not be falsified.
I’m sooo glad that medical science does NOT use this type of methodology when testing treatments or medications. In medical science it must be proven to work, not just that it can’t be proven that it doesn’t work. So that is why, for example, that medications are testing in relation to the effectiveness of a placebo. They have to work better than a placebo to be deemed effective.
As it is stated in conclusion to most of the writings, it comes down to a question of belief; you either do or you don’t. Some can be ignorant and try to beat up everyone around them with their ‘arguements’ and some choose to keep this knowledge respectfully to themselves.