TC, there are several things I would appreciate you specifically addressing, if you would.
1) Do you call any science that uses a preponderance of evidence rather than direct measurement "Just a theory?" Because, while, yes, evolution happens on a VERY long timescale so as not to be seen (in macro-organisms) by the naked eye, all of the evidence---literally, all of it---keeps rolling in, and somehow it always supports the conclusion of common ancestry.
2) Your expectation of evolution having the same result everywhere is flawed. It seems as if you expect, given enough time, that all organisms will wind up as humans. I get this idea from you asking the question, several times, why gorillas haven't evolved technology or chimps not looking more like us. That's not the way it works. The changes that happen are random. Adaptations that are deleterious are bred out of the population, adaptations that are beneficial are statistically more likely to be kept. There is no guarantee that any specific mutation will happen, though. Gorillas may never have a mutation that allows higher cognition (on our level). Hell,we (humans) are extremely lucky that multiple mutations happened that allowed that same higher cognition in us. It's not a pipeline to the same destination, is what I'm saying. Where did you get that idea?
3) We have stated, several times, that evolution, in micro-organisms, is testable, observable, and have even provided links to data and peer-reviewed articles stating the same. By what mechanism do you suggest that it is any different for macro-organisms?
1) Do you call any science that uses a preponderance of evidence rather than direct measurement "Just a theory?" Because, while, yes, evolution happens on a VERY long timescale so as not to be seen (in macro-organisms) by the naked eye, all of the evidence---literally, all of it---keeps rolling in, and somehow it always supports the conclusion of common ancestry.
2) Your expectation of evolution having the same result everywhere is flawed. It seems as if you expect, given enough time, that all organisms will wind up as humans. I get this idea from you asking the question, several times, why gorillas haven't evolved technology or chimps not looking more like us. That's not the way it works. The changes that happen are random. Adaptations that are deleterious are bred out of the population, adaptations that are beneficial are statistically more likely to be kept. There is no guarantee that any specific mutation will happen, though. Gorillas may never have a mutation that allows higher cognition (on our level). Hell,we (humans) are extremely lucky that multiple mutations happened that allowed that same higher cognition in us. It's not a pipeline to the same destination, is what I'm saying. Where did you get that idea?
3) We have stated, several times, that evolution, in micro-organisms, is testable, observable, and have even provided links to data and peer-reviewed articles stating the same. By what mechanism do you suggest that it is any different for macro-organisms?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
