I don't have an issue with adaptation. Have you ever seen a recent provable example of one species changing into another species. Do you understand the difference between theory and proven fact
Because all humans are made in the image of God…
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
This does not take place anywhere close to the amount of time that a human would be able to observe it. Fossil records, however suggest this is true. Logically speaking adaptations would result in genetic advantages, which clearly would result in physical change over generations.
It’s a theory, which I believe strikes on the truth, however, I believe that over the centuries, it will be refined to more exactly describe the process.
In science the word theory means something that has been verified with evidence. Way too many people fail to understand the word in its context. This isn't a police investigation where a "theory" is the same as a scientific hypothesis. Theory means it has been tested and tried and found to be true through that process.
So where are the missing links? Think about the time required to change thousands of different species into entirely different species. I know you are bad with mathematics but evolution is statistically improbable. You say it happens but there is ZERO evidence that it is happening today , NONE.
So why has the THEORY of evolution changed dozens of times? Evolution is statistically improbable.
Some calculations indicate that the probability of complex organisms evolving by random mutation and natural selection is less than one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.
I get why the 'missing link' question comes up, it's a common one, and evolution can seem confusing at first. But let's break it down simply, like we're chatting over coffee.
Imagine evolution not as a ladder or chain where one animal turns directly into another, but as a big family tree. You don't evolve from your cousin, you both share a grandparent. Most fossils we find are like distant cousins or aunts/uncles, not your direct grandma. We have tons of these 'relatives' in the fossil record showing how groups changed over time, but we don't need every single one to see the family resemblance. Especially with DNA nowadays that can show the connection even more clearly.
Think of the fossil record like an old family photo album with some pages missing or photos lost. You might not have a picture of every birthday, but with the ones you have, you can still see how the kids grew up, changed hairstyles, and became adults. We have thousands of 'photos' (fossils) showing gradual changes, like Tiktaalik (fish to land animal), Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), or early human relatives like Australopithecus. Each new find fills in details, but it doesn't 'break' the story if some are missing.
Fun twist: Every time we find a new fossil, it creates two new 'gaps' on either side, like splitting a puzzle piece. But that doesn't mean the puzzle is broken, it just gets more detailed.
You're right that we don't see big changes in one lifetime, this is because evolution takes millions of years, like watching a glacier move. But fossils show it happened, and we see small changes today (like bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance or finches adapting beaks in real time).
Evolution isn't about one species suddenly becoming another, it's tiny changes adding up over generations, like compound interest in a bank account. We see it happening now in labs and nature (e.g., new virus strains or insects resisting pesticides). As for probability, it's like saying winning the lottery is impossible, yet people win because there are billions of 'tickets' (mutations) over deep time.
serenity
Verified User
between my quote and your reply, one is hyperbole and the other describing how corruption transfers from previous 4 generations into the last arriving generation gap of each ancestral lineage existed since inception of original 16 great great grandparents that were part of each great great grandchild's 30 person genetic pool of chromosomes never duplicated in streaming DNA lifetime inhabitng space daily alive now.
^^^
Keeps proving she never went to college much less became a "doctor".
Derpity Derp Derp
Agreed.
OTOH, Ms. Fat Lame's lack of scientific knowledge is the best evidence to date that she lied about being doctor.
How do you square evolution with statistics. Do you realize randomly changing into a complex human genome is statistically improbable.
serenity
Verified User
Please, stay on message and in your chosen social identity after birth. It validates what I say about the systematic human behavior every generation gap since dawn of civilization history recorded how humans behave cradle to grave every generation gap so far lived as eternally separated genetically in plain sight...
Derpity Derp Derp.
serenity
Verified User
You became exactly whom you pretend to be on the world stage saving humanity's methods of corrupting every great great grandchild forward daily here.
Derpity Derp Derp
serenity
Verified User
True to your loyalty serving social consensus behavior. Perfect example of why democracies implode from their mob rule dictatorships
Derpity Derp Derp
serenity
Verified User
Your character is as deep as the context of your soul's personality. Shame there are no chromosomes involved.
There is not 0 evidence, but as I said, as time goes by, it will likely be filled in and amended. We know for example there are genetic mutations, that are sometimes advantageous, and that those with the propensity toward that "mutation" would likely have more offspring eventually resulting in a race of people where that "mutation" is no longer a mutation, but normal anatomy. There is a lot of evidence, but not all that one would need to call it a law of nature.
I believe it has struck on the correct path to figure it out, and is a step away from the magical thinking of religion. Humanity has historically "filled in the gaps" with religion or magic until science takes its place. Science should not (and does not seem to ) invade on the area of mythology, and Religion should not step on the toes of science. They are different ways of describing what we see, and they both have their place.
The Theory of Evolution does not say we evolved from Monkeys. Only a simpleton says that.