I criminal court the prosecutor many times present evidence to win his argument , and neglects other evidence but who cares let the other side disprove right or wrong, so is in science . But many cases are reversed if the defence have other evidence which the prosecution have neglected . So is in science . In science The publication of the initial paper is the leading paper , the subsequent paper are most of the time , yes , yes and yes.
Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter bearer_of_truth
- Start date
I criminal court the prosecutor many times present evidence to win his argument , and neglects other evidence but who cares let the other side disprove right or wrong, so is in science . But many cases are reversed if the defence have other evidence which the prosecution have neglected . So is in science . In science The publication of the initial paper is the leading paper , the subsequent paper are most of the time , yes , yes and yes.
A limited god, needs to rest just like us.
Well, you can believe that, but that's not what the Bible says.
Good to see that you are deciding that some parts of the Bible are not believable. Most people do that for Genesis 1 as well.
That's actually CHLCA (sorry my typo) and it is not an invented name - it is an acronym, like LASER or RADAR.
?? No, people don't "go back to ape" any more than whales go back to land animals. It takes millions of years to make such dramatic changes in a species.
No, that isn't how science works. If you deliberately "neglect other evidence" somebody else will point it out and you will be discredited. Unlike a court of law, science is not an adversarial system where you can "win" an argument. Science keeps trying the case over and over again, getting closer and closer to "the truth". There is never a final "winner".
discovered something ‘shocking’ that could rewrite a key part of human evolution
Human hands are capable of performing incredibly complex movements like no other parts of the body. It has, however, been a long-term mystery of how they evolved to the current form. A group of researchers, Tetsuya Nakamura, Andrew R. Gehrke, Justin .
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9d6a7854-cec5-3991-8680-f9c067f2887e/scientists-discovered.html
This wasn't just about human hands, it applies to all mammals and quite a number of vertebrates. And by the way, it reinforces the basic idea of evolution, that species evolve from previous forms. It means we evolved from fish.
bearer_of_truth
Registered Senior Member
Considering that man evolved from apes and apes are still around, man should still be evolving from them. Yet we clearly have seen no photographic evidence of any evolutionary progress.
This is false. As has been pointed out to you already in this thread.
Which part of DaveC's post #26 did you not understand?
It would help if you knew what you were talking about.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
BoT. This is not how evolution works.
Do not be so quick to dismiss it based solely on faulty assumptions.
If I were to, say, dismiss God based on the conclusion that hell doesn't seem to exist no matter how far down we dig, would you say I had a sufficient grasp of Creationism? That's what you're doing here.
So you think man evolved from apes in what, like a decade? 100 years?
That does not say much about Chimp or Bonobo, Apparently our hands are more developed then their ( apes ) , if we have the common ancestor, since our hands are as versatile as the tail of a fish.
The formation of permanent civilization and the writing of Genesis coincides, in time, with an important invention; invention of writing. Genesis is the first published theory of evolution. This is not to say Genesis is the most advanced theory of evolution, anymore than 99% of the stuff published in science 50 years ago, is also the most advanced. Times change and understanding changes. However, Genesis has the distinction as the first publication on evolution. It assumes a sequence of steps and not all at once, which turned out to be correct.
I agree with your statement. Amen.
What the hell? You think the point of that study was that human hands are as versatile as a fish tail? Wow.
Duh, evolution is an obvious fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection which explains this fact is not, and nothing like what the Bible describes.
Oldest known writing: 3400-3200 BC.
Development of agriculture: approx 8000 BC. Or, if you want to quibble that the start of agriculture wasn't the start of civilisation then there's the large settlements in Mesopotamia that date back 6500 BC.
Not really "coinciding", is it?
Genesis isn't a theory.
Arrant nonsense since each "step" wasn't remotely predicated on the preceding one (as indicated by the fact that there two different sequences given in Genesis [1]) and thus isn't even evolution.
1 Not to mention that it says human females arrived sometime after human males...
It occurred to me that dogs evolved from wolves & wolves still exist. They might be slightly different from the wolves from which dogs evolved, just as modern Homo Sapiens are somewhat different from their prehistoric ancestors due to environmental factors. Examples:
I am guessing there are other examples of species whose progenitors still exit.
No, we share basically the same hands. (In fact our hands are a bit more primitive and less developed than a chimpanzee's, but not by much.)
No, the report didn't say anything remotely like that.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That would be a good example. Except dogs and wolves can still interbreed. But I like the way you're thinking.