So one day, I was watching T.V (Discovery or History, I.D.K I fogot) and what he said was that according to the data of the human race, and the length of how long we have been here for, it is IMPOSSIABLE for us to have advanced at the time that we have been here. So according to these historians and physicists, evolution is a theory, not a myth. Comments?
I'm asking what people think about the comment that was stated by these people that said that there is no possiable way that people could have evolved at such a short matter of time. I'm asking if that's true then how are we here?
It's not true. Those scientists you cited must be in the vast minority of those who are still dogmatically clinging onto a 2000 year old myth which has been disproven on every point.
Anyone have any kind of source on this? Or something like it?
I don't exactly understand what you are asking either. These scientists say evolution is impossible because we have not been here long enough? Isn't the purpose of the theory of evolution to explain that we haven't been here as we are today for very long, but have been constantly changing and evolving?
Anyway I don't know what they said about that, there's no source. I know you saw it on T.V. but maybe someone knows of somewhere else this kind of information could be found. I don't know what time period they place us in... like how long they said we have been here, and how long we would need to evolve?
What there saying is that its impossible because there's more to evolution than changing the way the skull looks or an animal walks. It's also about changing the inside down in the molecules and enzymes. All those systems are under really tight order and if you change it a little they go worse. So what happens is that you have to change both the structure of the animal and the enzyme systems at the same time, which is impossible to do in such a short amount of time. It's just impossible.
which is impossible to do in such a short amount of time.
Exactely, all these people are saying that we evolved from the Aps because we have 99% of their genes. Even if that is true. There is no way that we could evolved from Aps to humans in the time that life has been on Earth
So one day, I was watching T.V (Discovery or History, I.D.K I fogot) and what he said was that according to the data of the human race, and the length of how long we have been here for, it is IMPOSSIABLE for us to have advanced at the time that we have been here.
We've been evolving just as long as any other animal. We simply developed a new method of survival by being able to think and create our way out of problems rather then relying on other physical advantages. We weren't the first to do this either, we were simply the best.
All those systems are under really tight order and if you change it a little they go worse.
Some changes yes, most changes do nothing, some changes will benefit. Those that benefit often allow that benefit to move on to the next generation and spread. We have observed instances of beneficial changes.
Some changes yes, most changes do nothing, some changes will benefit. Those that benefit often allow that benefit to move on to the next generation and spread. We have observed instances of beneficial changes.
In this thread it's about whether there was enough time for evolution to happen. Since your answer says most changes do nothing, it says NO, there wasn't enough time.
In this thread it's about whether there was enough time for evolution to happen. Since your answer says most changes do nothing, it says NO, there wasn't enough time.
Kirby, life has been on earth for billions of years, you must account that some mammal relics existed in the dinosaur time. We have even seen signs that we had evolved from our ancestors, mainly differences in the scull and the probability of hair. We may have different eye color as well, as the blue eye gene is said to come from a small mutation. Link to a non-biased sight with actual evidence against evolution, not just a vague description.
To add to my last post. We have observed drastic evolutionary changes in a species within 50 years as a result of drastic environmental changes. So if 50 years is enough time to develop new traits then why is 3.5 billion years not enough time to develop what we have today?
It's not entirely IMPOSSIBLE. In biology, there are no rules that are always followed, and there is no complete certainty in the answers uncovered in labs and stuff. For example, many undereducated students are taught that ALL plant cells have chloroplasts. However, in reality many root cells lack these cloroplasts.
Even if human evolution is extremely unlikely, it still is possible to some degree.
