Literally trueAnimals look similar = evolution must be real
Tf do you mean a coincidence
Technicaly yes but what is the chance of humans and apes resemblance be a product of mere coincidence?? Very low I would say
If humans and apes are not close animals (on the evolution tree) then how can the resemblance between the 2 be explained
what do you actually mean by coincidence, how can u measure the "chance"?
Coincidence = a product of a random, blind process
You know we're related with sharks too?Animals look similar = evolution must be real
What do you mean by related
well, the process of natural selection makes sense, but it did not necessarily happened
I don't agree with this, the contingency argument is impossible to debunk unless if one insists on Infinite Regress desperately, which just leads to logical absurdities.
So, if the first Homo Sapiens was a divine and special creation with unique attributes without denying the existence of other hominids, would you accept it as a valid theory?
Sharks are one of our oldest ancestors, we evolved from them
It's not the most reasonable one, it's a proven one
Note that I used the world "empirical", I do have knowledge about the metaphysical arguments on God's existence but to think that this God is capable of intervention and rational planning we would need empirical proofs, not only metaphysical speculations
Lol yeah something is probably not right on this informations
Great subject, i will make a research about this Insha Allah, you have woked my curiosity about arguments on this regard.
Of course, it's pretty evident that the Human Being is much more special than any other animal, and posseses very unique characteristics.
nah its legit
Yes thats my view too, its pretty evident that we have things in common with other animals but its also evident that we are special at the same time
When arguing about this, one should be aware about the position of the one arguing. I would ask him to explain the process from non consciousness to consciousness, abiogenesis, and other matters which his theory should explain easily without miraculous sort of claims (which would usually be the position he would deny), questions like how did monkeys reach South America before humans, or how such and such animal species developed this or that which is counter productive, or did such and such, etc etc etc
Yes but keep in mind that the biggest strength of the evolution theory is its predictive power and algorithimic precision. We may never be able to fully explain everything about life because we simply dont have the means to, just like we cant explain God, but that wouldnt be enough to disprove the theory
I'm personally not for the movement of somehow trying to disprove it, i would easily accept many of it's premises, rather, i would argue for it to be a lot more open on the theories of human origin and other events like the ones mentioned above (which will probably remain without an answer anyways), like many psycological evolutionists take big leaps a lot of times to explain whatever it may be about why humans developed such and such trait. I do think it's methods are solid, it still possesses some holes like many main theories on the scientific field but it has definetly valid points also.
Yes there is many things that evolution wont ever be able to empirically proof, for example the evolution of the eye - the eyes hardly fossilize - and others. Such things will remain unanswered, so there will still be space for speculations.
With a small banana
