Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
According to the vast majority of biologists and scientists in other fields of science, only the synthetic theory of evolution, which assumes that modern humans and modern chimpanzees had a common ancestor, agrees with each other the countless data that biology, biochemistry and physics currently have. Since the synthetic theory of evolution has experimental evidence, is internally consistent, and there is no other theory that is ready to explain all the available observations, it is its explanations that are universally and universally recognized among specialists that are considered correct.
I haven't read Darwin either. But I still understand the meaning of the joke about “Rabinovich sang”. Darwin on variability-heredity-natural selection, which I've been fascinated with since high school. It was extremely useful to me for my own life… and it is well expressed as follows:”if you suffer for a long time, something will work out.”
The mass of my attempts leads me to success by itself, this means for me.
Usually Darwin is needed – this is all about the monkey-to pump up the idea of a god who gives or does not give, and therefore it is useless to try.
We cannot observe the evolution of primates so quickly, humanity as a meaningful civilization is only a few thousand years old. Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have very limited habitats in the rainforest, but they are also not omnivorous. The chimpanzee eats meat of course but that's not enough. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. Humans are descended from advanced ancient apes, long extinct, or rather evolved. The ancestors of ancient human species were supposed to be australopithecines, they are not referred to as monkeys, but are referred to as hominids, but in fact they are all the same advanced monkeys, the size of chimpanzees, but distinguished by developed bipedalism (upright walking). Those ancestors of people were omnivorous, adapted to change their habitat and settle in unusual places for them, lived in caves, lived in the savanna. There is nothing like this in modern higher apes, they are essentially dead-end branches of evolution, and overly highly specialized. In addition, the niche is filled with homo Sapiens, the kings of nature and ape evolution towards the emergence of an intelligent hominid has no place in our world.
The monkey never turned into a human. The theory of evolution implies that humans and great apes share a common ancestor from which our species is descended. The presence of such an ancestor is indicated by many characteristics: the structure of the bodies of humans and representatives of our sister species — orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees, the structure, size and shape of the brain, genetic similarity, etc.
In addition to our species, homo sapiens, there were many other species of humans that are now extinct. They had the same relation to us that chimpanzees have to gorillas — they are different species of the same genus. And the common ancestor of all human species is most likely Australopithecus, but it is also quite far from an even more ancient progenitor, from which, in addition to humans, great apes also descend.
15 different types of people can be viewed here.
Darwin never expressed the opinion that the ape turned into a man. Evolution is not about turning someone into someone else. And “origin of species” isn't about transformations.�
Darwin suggested that species change under the driving forces of evolution in response to environmental changes, and that related species once shared a common ancestor. This isn't about transformations. The apes didn't turn into humans.�
First, not “monkeys”, but australopithecines. Secondly, they did not turn into anyone but lived for themselves and gave birth to more adapted Australopithecines. The environment changed, and so did the Australopithecines. Including becoming more and more intelligent, increasing the volume of the brain. And gradually, these changes accumulated in such numbers that they ceased to be Australopithecines and became homo. And they continued to evolve.
We observe evolution in those species that have a long enough generational life span to allow us to see hundreds of generations change.
But even in this century, we can observe changes in the human population. The simplest example is an increase in people's height and a decrease in brain volume.
So primates are still evolving, and we can see that.
And transformations are not about evolution and not about Darwin, it's about Harry Potter.
Boris, it's you again. The fact that you were born already proves the truth of the theory of evolution.
I will say right away: I recommend you to read “The Origin of species” by Charles Darwin.
So, what do you think, judging by your question:
There is a monkey in nature. A common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Then suddenly, after pregnancy, she gave birth to a human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). Or, if you don't have any ideas about evolutionary biology at all, then this monkey fell asleep, had a dream about how to make an axe out of a stone and a stick, and woke up as a modern anatomical type of person. Your logic is as follows:
How really:
This isn't exactly a “magical transformation”. This transformation is called evolution, and it lasts for millions of years. It cannot be experimentally observed (although selection is suitable as an experimental method, but with the replacement of natural selection by artificial selection), of course, if you are not an immortal being.
You won't believe it, but the word “people” refers to the biological genus of living organisms Homo. It includes our closest extinct relatives along the line of evolution:�
Homo sapiens.
Homo habilis is a highly developed Australopithecus, the first member of the genus Homo.
Rudiments can also serve as evidence of evolution
A vestige is a remnant of evolution in our body. It used to be used functionally, but with time and changes in the nature of human activity, it became unnecessary.
Human examples:
Separately, it is possible to distinguish the passage of the human embryo through almost all stages of evolution during pregnancy. For example, a 1-month-old human embryo has a full-fledged tail and the makings of gills.
And some snakes are born with hind legs, as they are descended from reptiles that had them:�
For a complete overview of the evidence for the theory of evolution, follow the links:�
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs of evolution_edit
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
It seems to me that if a person has already decided to fight against the generally accepted opinion, then he should at least read about what this opinion conveys…
Why would they do that? Evolution explains how species change under adverse environmental influences. That is why some monkeys became erect-it became inconvenient to move through trees (savanna theory) due to the decrease in the number of these very trees.
At the moment, monkeys have all the conditions for a normal life, and they simply do not need to change)
How does it follow that now there is no “transformation of monkeys into people”? Chimpanzees have already invented spears:
https://scisne.net/a-1671
Maybe in half a million years they'll be quite reasonable.
The question as a whole is formulated clumsily, but it is pointless to wait for something else, you need to explain.
I'll try a shorter one:
According to biologists, the ancient (not modern) monkey gradually turned into a human because its environment changed in such a way that the mutations that gradually turned the monkey into a human were favorable in these changes and were not eliminated by selection.
Since monkeys aren't exactly the same right now, and custom mutations aren't going to happen, and monkeys ' environments are changing in a different way, where they're evolving to now is an interesting open question.
And evolution simply does not have any mandatory goal of turning everyone into people (as many people think). It does not possess the qualities of an intelligent Lord God, and it does not create any “crowns of creation”. That is, “crowns” – all who have lived to this day.
What a naive and primitive concept of the origin of species and evolutionary processes in general A chimpanzee will not turn into a gorilla But they are both primates from a common root It is obvious
In nature, everything multiplies, develops and evolves. But in the artificial framework, the process of dehumanization takes place. There are a lot of examples around, it's just that science doesn't fix it, but the process itself is active.
There are such fine particles and corpuscles are not finer than them, so it is at this level that thought forms of future forms-bodies-arise. At this level, the form of both humans and apes is built, and they are completely different in how and what will be manifested. Mindfulness and consciousness evolve, everything else evolves in abilities or adapts as the form or just the forms progress.
Only consciousness evolves. Every form only adapts, develops abilities and skills, and nothing more. In the subtle plane, where the forms are thought of-human bodies are different from the bodies of animals, insects and others at the corpuscular level, but not one science can not get to the corpuscular level, this can only be done by a conscious person.
Have you ever heard of homeostasis? This is the ability of living organisms to adapt to constantly changing environmental conditions(in short). There is a good example – the island of Krakatoa, after a strong volcanic eruption in 1883-the state of homeostasis of the previous forest climax ecosystem was destroyed, as well as all life on this island. In the years since the eruption, Krakatoa has gone through a chain of ecological changes in which new plant and animal species have replaced each other, resulting in biological variability and a resulting climax community. The ecological succession in Krakatoa took place in several stages. The complete chain of successions that led to menopause is called priseria. In the example of Krakatoa, this island formed a climax community with eight thousand different species recorded in 1983, one hundred years after the eruption destroyed life on it. The data confirm that the position remains in homeostasis for some time, and the appearance of new species very quickly leads to the rapid disappearance of old ones.
About Darwin and apes-today it is known for certain that the human ape, chimpanzee and bonobo have a common ancestor, but all three went on different paths of development. At the same time, many evolutionary processes go much longer than not only the life of one person, but also of an entire culture, which does not allow a single person to see all these processes in his short life. That's why you don't see the “transformation of a monkey into a human”))
If no one is currently writing the novel War and Peace, then why, in the opinion of literary critics, was this novel written by a person?
In general, based on modern concepts of evolution, the re-transformation of an ape into a human is extremely unlikely. First, purely from the point of view of probability theory – if an event occurred once in several million years, then the probability that it will occur again in several decades is almost zero. Secondly, the re-emergence of humans is hindered by the fact that the ecological niche of humans is already occupied. This is exactly the same reason that no other species can re-evolve.
To imagine evolution, you need to think in hundreds and thousands of generations. Each of us is a mutant in the sense that some part of the genetic material does not correspond to either the paternal or maternal one. But in the vast majority of cases, this does not appear at all, and it is very rare to notice it visually.
A monkey didn't turn into a human at the snap of a finger, and a human wasn't born to a monkey. In general, there is no clear border, a specific generation from which people began.
remove people from the planet – since the natural niche should be empty – and start waiting. I will not undertake to say exactly how long we will have to wait-maybe a million years, maybe more …. and maybe less-because people will leave a lot of” artifacts ” that are just suitable for use by monkeys.
Well, why doesn't it happen right away, there are reports all over the world about the intellectual abilities of primates for the arts, the use of tools. Personally, my theory is that evolution continues after a certain stop, a period during which primates did not need to develop due to the already existing quite comfortable conditions in which everything is learned and nothing new is needed
My friend, I don't believe in this theory either, and I think it's the most delusional one possible, but as I've been told.
Evolution is still going on, it just takes thousands, millions of years, so we simply won't notice it with our life expectancy
If labor made a person, then with a high probability from a horse, a monkey has nothing to do with it. But maybe if a person is descended from a monkey, then he will eventually turn into a horse.
Darwin thought far ahead. Even things I didn't know.
“Breeding as a science has taken shape only in recent decades. In the past, it was more an art than a science. Skills, knowledge and specific experience, often classified, were the property of individual farms, passing from generation to generation. Only Darwin's genius was able to summarize all this vast and fragmented experience of the past, putting forward the idea of natural and artificial selection as the main factor in evolution, along with heredity and variability.
– N. I. Vavilov. How to build a course in genetics, breeding, and seed production // Yarovizatsiya. – 1939. – No. 1. – pp. 131-135. [2]
The theoretical basis of breeding is genetics, since it is knowledge of the laws of genetics that allows you to purposefully manage the fixation of mutations, predict the results of crossing, and correctly select hybrids. As a result of applying knowledge on genetics, it was possible to create more than 10 thousand wheat varieties based on several original wild varieties, to obtain new strains of microorganisms that secrete food proteins, medicinal substances, vitamins, etc.
The tasks of modern breeding include the creation of new and improvement of existing plant varieties, animal breeds and strains of microorganisms.
Long-term breeding work has made it possible to breed many dozens of breeds of domestic chickens with high egg production,…”
And this is the main thing! – Egg production! And how not to break it? – You should walk straight! – the monkeys decided to use genetics for breeding. There's no other way.
Where's Denissy going?” Snakes, snakes all around. Be empty to them. Boots need to be peed. Zha again. Something like that. Little by little.
And what Darwin disguised as industrial espionage as the revelation of a sea cruise … A smart person. Not a match. Not from the drunk tank to carry such diaries! Unless Ruslan Khalilov is my cellmate?
REFUTATION OF DARWIN'S THEORY
There are strong arguments to be made against Darwin's theory of human origins. These are the so — called complex or irreducible organs.
1 Darwin's theory is refuted.
Refutation of Darwin's theory began to appear from the time when the development of science allowed us to study the structure of the body's cells more thoroughly. In the 19th century, scientists could not even imagine that the cell of a living organism is so incredibly complex and orderly arranged. If 19th-century scientists had been able to find out how complex the DNA molecule is, and how all the information about the body is encoded in it in an orderly way, then there would have been no discussion for or against Darwin's theory, as well as the theory itself.
There are strong arguments to be made against Darwin's theory of human origins. These are the so — called complex or irreducible organs.
This is an argument against the theory that was recognized by Darwin himself. The whole theory was based on the gradual development of a biological organism (uniformitarianism). Darwin recognized the fact that if “irreducible” biological constructs are discovered, that is, those that, if at least one “detail” is removed from them, will lead to the failure of the entire structure, then his theory of “gradual” development in the course of evolution will fail completely and the theory will be refuted. And such bio-structures were found!
The “irreducible” or complex element, which demonstrates the refutation of Darwin's theory, was a small flagellum for the movement of single-celled organisms. In fact, it turned out to be a complex unique bio-mechanism.
– random changes in organs or any part of the body will develop and be inherited from generation to generation only if the individual with this change will have advantages in survival over other individuals.
Otherwise, such changes will not be inherited.
What does this mean?
And it follows a very definite thing: the mammary gland could appear, and be passed on to the next generations, only if it appeared in a form that performs its full useful function, that is, it ALREADY produces exactly the nutritional substance that the cub needs. Otherwise, another change in the body, which is useless for the body and survival — would not be passed on to the next generation, since it would not give an advantage over other individuals. Conclusion: the mammary gland is an organ that could not appear due to gradual development.
Evidence for the presence of irreducible (complex) organics in living beings gives a complete understanding of the fact that Darwin's theory is disproved!
C-paradox
Let's not forget that when the Darwinian hypothesis was born, scientists had no idea what a particular DNA molecule looked like. With the development of science, scientists gained the opportunity to study the DNA molecule, as a result of which a very interesting paradox was discovered, the presence of which directly contradicted Darwin's theory.
According to the theory, the evolution of species should have been gradual, from simpler to more complex. It would be logical to assume that the DNA molecule, which is essentially a coded blueprint for the future organism, should have become more and more complex, as new organisms were formed. But after studying the DNA of the amoeba, scientists found that the size of the genome of a single-celled amoeba is about a hundred (!!) times larger than the human genome! In addition, the DNA of two very similar species can be radically different. This is an inexplicable and clearly contradictory discovery, scientists called the C-paradox.
It follows that the genome of some species is often much larger than it is required to build an organism. A significant part of the genome is not involved in the definition and formation of the physical body at all.
These scientific discoveries are not consistent with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. On the contrary, they refute it as a theory.
Proponents of Darwin's theory are of the opinion that the opinions of scientists deserve much more attention than the opinions of individual unknown critics of Darwinism. But there are many scientists, and the best of them, and those recognized by the entire scientific world, deserve the Nobel Prize. So, among the Nobel laureates, extremely critical of Darwin's theory of evolution spoke: Ernst Chain, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or medicine; Richard Smalley, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Nobel Prize in physics, Arthur Compton. The opinion of scientists of this rank can not be not authoritative.
Darwin's theory of PROS and CONS. Arguments.
Charles Darwin was not a professional biologist. His entire education was limited to two years of lecturing at the University of Edinburgh's Faculty of Medicine.� �The evolutionary ideas he proposed were only the result of assumptions without any definite evidence. And yet, despite this, the assumption known as Darwin's theory of evolution not only came to light, but also became the main, official view in science.
This theory was based on the principles of uniformism-gradual uniform development. It was far removed from such concepts as God or the Creator, a reasonable first cause.
Interestingly, Darwin never studied biology professionally, showing only an amateur interest in flora and fauna. In 1832, Darwin joined the research vessel Beagle as a volunteer. The British government organized an expedition, during which the ship was to visit different continents. When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he was struck by the abundance and diversity of the animal world. Especially when he was interested in watching finches.
One of the pluses of Darwin's theory was that while observing birds, he noticed that there are a huge number of bird species, and they all differ in beaks. Darwin suggested the existence of a dependence of the length of beaks on environmental conditions. Based on this, he came to the conclusion that living organisms were not created by God separately, but were descended from a single ancestor and only changed over time under the influence of local natural conditions.
After observing finches, Darwin drew conclusions that he “tried on” the origin and development of all life on Earth.
If we consider the development of all life on the planet, using Darwin's theory, it reveals many huge “holes”.
Arguments against Darwin's theory.
As arguments “against” Darwin's theory of evolution, the absence of transitional species in the chain of development of the animal world is striking. There are also no transitional species between great apes and humans. The remains of an Australopithecus that lived about three million years ago seem to have filled in the missing picture of a transitional species. But the remains of an ape were discovered, with a more developed brain than that of australopithecus, but who nevertheless lived about six million years ago, that is, much earlier than Australopithecus. This refuted the fact that Australopithecus was a transitional species (“Breaking Darwin's Theory” documentary).
If we consider mammals, they are generally” detached ” in development from other animals that lay eggs. It is difficult to imagine how long it takes for an egg-laying animal to “evolve”, based on the” theory ” — into a mammal. And yet, no transitional remains have been found. Finds of dinosaur bones that lived hundreds of millions of years ago are not so rare. And for the entire later period, when mammals should have evolved from egg – laying animal species, no evidence has been found that would show the course of mammalian “evolution.”
The obvious absence of transitional forms, and a refutation of Darwin's theory of evolution, is demonstrated by the common giraffe. This animal is distinguished from all others by its long neck. The neck consists of vertebrae that have a bony structure. Bones are best preserved in the rock, and therefore, bone remains are the absolute majority among the finds of paleontologists. Let's pay attention to the fact that paleontologists can present us with the remains of animals that lived much earlier( according to evolutionists) than the time of the appearance of mammals. This means that the time during which the long neck of the giraffe should have “evolved” from the short one should have left accessible time layers in which transitional forms with an increasing neck should have been preserved! The result is null.
At the end of the 19th century, a discovery appeared that was supposed to be a huge plus and an argument for Darwin's theory of evolution.
In Germany, not far from the city of Eichstät, the remains of an ancient bird were found in a limestone quarry. These remains were sold to the museum. Then, at the same quarry, the remains of another bird were discovered, which were more complete, had a head and neck. They were also sold at auction for very good money. It is noteworthy that the bird's jaw had teeth like a lizard's. These fossils had every right to claim the title of a “transitional species” between reptiles and birds. So there was — archaeopteryx, a transitional species that supporters of Darwin's theory put in school textbooks. But we have already mentioned the meticulousness of scientists (otherwise they would not be scientists). And although proponents of the theory of evolution put the research of scientists in the “proof”, it is scientists who are engaged in refuting fakes or just obvious cases of fraud. Since 1983, British scientists have begun to question the reality of the reptilian bird Archaeopteryx. Eventually, a group of scientists were given permission to investigate архе archaeopteryx using carbon analysis, which would give an exact date to the elements of Archaeopteryx. After careful research, Archaeopteryx – as proof of Darwin's theory (as a transitional species) It was never exhibited in the museum's halls again. The research result is fake!
As it turned out later, the owners of the same limestone quarry earned more than once in this way. They knew that there was a huge demand for transitional forms of Darwin's theory of evolution. And as you know, demand creates supply.
And remember, theory is theory. Not a fact. Now there is a lot of evidence that the age of the remains does not correspond to the radionuclide study, which suggested the age. Changes only occur within the view. For example, dog to dog, cat to cat ( types of breeds).
There is no transformation of one species into another in nature. Science has not experimentally confirmed this, but the laws of genetics prove that nature uses mutations. By the way, Darwin did not have an opinion about the transformation of an ape into a human, read it in the original. Attempts to prove evolution have not yet been made, but there is no other theory yet. There are only suggestions that somehow the effects of the external environment were transitional periods that change the biological species, but so far it is difficult to confirm or refute, and the fossil transitional remains are still insufficient for arguments or proof of the evolution of species. The scientific method of verification must confirm. And the assumption or versions of hypotheses are not yet evidence, but only a lack of knowledge about the world around us. Consider me a militant atheist who denies both creationism and the theory of evolution. Here's an article about it.
Anthropology without Evolution.
CLASSIFICATION OF BIOFORMS AS A SYSTEM FOR COGNITION.
Evolution has already been well explained to you here, and I will give you a concrete example that is happening now and not with some monkeys, but with people.
The average brain size seems to be decreasing and opens up interesting prospects, especially with the development of technology, it is quite possible that in 100 thousand years people will degrade to the level of gorilla intelligence, but they will lose little in the quality of life, as caring smart machines will not allow this.
https://antropogenez.ru/article/493/
It is absolutely true that man is not an ideal creature. Or rather, a creature that is not adapted to life on Earth. 1)We don't know how to run fast or long
2) We can't swim fast and long
3) we can't fly
4) we don't know how to jump far and high
5) we don't have the wool to stay out in the cold, we freeze all the time when it's cold and die of hypothermia
6) we are hot when the temperature rises, we die of thirst
7) we don't have normal full-fledged canines like carnivores, nor do we have full-fledged teeth for chewing plant food like herbivores.
8) the weather and pressure change – we get sick.
9) we suffer from all the diseases that exist on Earth
10) we do not know how to navigate around the cardinal directions and magnetic poles, and we are also not able to navigate with ultrasound
11) we do not have good eyesight, our eyesight deteriorates in the first third of life.
12) we can't see in bright light or in the dark
13) we are the only species on Earth that cooks food, all animals eat their food raw.
Is this evolution?? Why haven't humans learned at least half of these things over millions of years?
Now imagine what happens if you suddenly remove all people from the Earth? No way. The Earth will “breathe a sigh of relief”. And if you remove at least one of the existing animal species? Environmental disaster. The conclusion is that man came to Earth, but did not appear on it. But I still couldn't get used to/adapt to her living conditions. And it probably won't be able to.
So I understood or I didn't understand
What is the meaning of being on earth?
Odin broadcasts – to the last judgment
Believe and then you will be saved.
Others deny manna,
But they preach nirvana.
Like, the spirit goes around blindly,
He's an endless life cast.
You'll circle around, like, five times
And so we like it bro,
That you will submit to a higher authority
Raise your spirits, quell your passions.
And the enlightened spirit will soar,
Striving for harmony, for zenith,
It will take up a free orbit,
A string in the choir will ring.
So two limiting pictures
Weaves our spirit like a spider's web.
Burning with hope for eternity,
We are placed in infinity.
The idea of the Last Judgment,
Like it or not, back and forth,
It suggests a vessel,
Which will suddenly be filled in.
And then to the last judgment
They'll probably carry us all
And all the damned souls
They will burn them because they are disobedient.
There is no chance to remain eternal,
I've seen a little light of the saints.
So the idea of nirvana
It's closer to me than the dream of manna.
But reason and faith are inseparable
And synthesize more easily.
The new idea is blooming
And maybe in the soul zapadet.
Like, there is no God, but there are robyats
Surprisingly torovaty.
They have seeded our world
Through the all-seeing ether.
Of many atoms-molecules
Various Greeks were riveted here.
A monkey came out by accident,
There is no perfection without flaw.
So the mind, competing with faith
And dabbling in philosophy,
They lead us to the truth carelessly.
Sometimes it's a pity that life is finite.
Aug. 92
Evolution doesn't work that way. Humanoid species split up many thousands of years ago. There were several varieties of people, only our species remained. Today's apes are descendants of those creatures that did not evolve into humans, i.e. adapted to survive in their own way.
Actually, the evolution is underway. This process is not fast. If you compare those people who lived for several hundred years and modern ones ,the differences will already be visible. Well, dim-witted people naturally imagine this as “one day a dinosaur gave birth to a horse”, but this is not true. And why does a monkey have to turn into a human at all? What are the prerequisites for this? And we differ favorably from most animals only in our intelligence. My vision is weak. The smell is lousy. My hearing is weak. We are never the “crown of creation” or an “ideal” being.
In my opinion, this is either a provocation question, or the author of the question at the level of REN TV. Darwin never wrote such nonsense about transformations. Evolution is not a transformation, it has its own mechanisms based on mutation and natural selection.
The same reason a turd can never turn back into a steak! Never under any circumstances. It is time to learn long ago: evolution, like many things in our world , is an irreversible process! In addition, the question was posed incorrectly. Humans are not descended from apes. Both humans and apes descended from common distant ancestors, and the original ancestor was not a monkey at all, but a completely different, now extinct species…
the transformation of an ape into a human took millions of years. It is possible that a similar transformation is also taking place now, but we do not notice it. We don't even have the ability to compare today's apes with those that lived a thousand years ago and understand whether they have changed or not.
A wonderful idea! First, we will call one of the monkeys “man”. And then-let's be surprised that all the other monkeys here in this here, with the name ” man ” – do not turn! This is incomprehensible to the mind, how can this be?!
Evolution is a pzdc what a long process
Evolution should not always follow the same path
The conditions when the ape evolved into a human were not the same as they are now.
Apes that evolved into humans were not the same as today's monkeys, chimpanzees and others
You're confusing chota. If before your eyes a monkey turns into a human, then this is not an evolution, this is a fairy tale like “Cinderella” with all sorts of volshebny fairies. Stop believing in fairy tales! Evolution is about something else.
For the reason that evolution is a process of adaptation to the surrounding conditions, and not a process of transformation into a person. Modern humanoid apes do not live in the same conditions as our ancestors-it is not profitable for them to develop upright walking, this will contradict their way of life, for example.
The answer is simple-a monkey doesn't turn into a human, because magic doesn't exist!
But the meaning of the question is understood. I answer with a similar example : why doesn't a dachshund turn into a bulldog? But genetically even closer than a certain monkey (not specified, gorilla, chimpanzee or who else) with a person. And a dachshund with a bulldog can even have common offspring. But here you are, what an opportunity, even if you hit the dachshund's face, even if you stretch the bulldog – it doesn't turn into one another! No matter how much you tell them that they have common ancestors.
The question itself is delusional Darwin's work: “Origin of species”. Note not “Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone”, not” The Fellowship of the Ring”, but origin by evolution, where in this work there is a word – transformation. In general, the answer to this question is simple:”there are no transformations, and Darwin did not express such an opinion”
Read or listen:
Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker”
Dawkins shows in his book that natural selection, which operates on spontaneous variations of simple initial forms over hundreds or thousands of generations, can generate equally impressive complexity. The book also shows the specific mechanisms that implement such incremental selection, and provides answers to frequently asked questions about evolution.
You might as well say that people don't grow up. Where have you seen a person grow from half a meter to two? Or up to 1.5 meters at least? Have you seen this? No. the same logic applies here. A person doesn't grow a meter in an instant. This takes many years and it is simply impossible to notice this growth. You need to take measurements and compare them with each other over the years to tell exactly how growth has changed. And evolution is a much longer process. A monkey can't turn into a human in a year, in 100 years, or in a thousand.
the monkey didn't turn into a human being because humans are a different branch of development. People like us lived hundreds of millions of years ago. or maybe more than one billion. there was plenty of time.
there are pre-parapet data: in the footprint in welt shoes, as now. a trilobite was crushed, and then another trilobite fell into the trail
and all this was buried by some cataclysm and therefore preserved. and the trilobites stopped their vital activity.
millions of years ago, and they were no more. So at a time when
Once upon a time there were trilobites. same as the modern one. in the same clothes and in the same shoes. What happened to this humanity is a big mystery, the traces are few, but evidential. buildings will collapse in hundreds of years and what will remain in millions of years.
the answer probably lies in the depths of the Earth, where it can only be preserved. But it is clear that civilization is not one and there were many of them and people were the same because the nature of solar energy is one and only it generates all living things the same.
Darwin did not claim that the ape became a man.
And now many people are turning into monkeys.
Humans arrived on Earth 600,000 years ago.
Neanderthals and their ilk are extinct.
Apes are descended from humans, who were not very picky about their partners.
Rzhunemogu! Австра Australopithecus (southern monkey) is just an extinct ancient ape. Maybe people are descended from mammoths after all? Those also died out long ago, but surely some individuals have managed to adapt to the changing environment.
Forget Darwin's theory, this is fake hypothysis . In fact, the four Seraphim are the first divine ones who created the animal world on earth .With the head of a lion-predators, with the head of a ram-herbivores, with the head of an eagle-birds and people-it is not clear who . But the peoples were created like this: Sheep bio-body soul dragon (look at the anatomy and there is a human embryo) here is the spirit of God and he creates from this in the image of the likeness . Germans are goats, French are pigs, Asians are dogs, Hindus are monkeys, and Negroes are the same . And so dale, Judet lizards, Indians cougars, pigmies pigs . Arab hyenas, etc .. Many nations know about this, but we are here ……..
In nature, the strong survive this is the law of who is stronger than a man or a monkey, in nature without civilization, I think the answer is unequivocal and I do not think that evolution from a strong and agile beast created such a misunderstanding as a person, this is at least nonsense, and what is actually stronger than Darwin's theory or the law of Nature
Apes today and the ancestor of humans are two different primates. Some lived on the plains, others in the jungle. Some have a straight back and hands for fine work, while others have strong arms and weak legs. Difference in the structure of the thumb. Who is familiar with physiology – the area of the brain responsible for fine motor skills, it is also responsible for mental development and speech. The development of finger work also affects children's general intelligence.
The ape ancestor didn't need to make tools, invent clothing, or shelter. Because the climate is good and the trees are full of fruit. The ancestor of man lived in harsh conditions. These two primates lived side by side, so it's probably wrong to say that the ape man is two different branches. Monkeys are a dead end, given their numbers, they will die out and only the smallest ones, baboons and monkeys, will remain.
I can't say for sure – I wasn't there. But here's F. Engels said that this process started when the monkey first picked up a stick. But if this happened, then the opposite is quite possible. We will wait for😊.
But even modern apes can be turned into humans. You can set up such an experiment. We need to take a herd of Bonobo monkeys and put them in such harsh conditions that they had to WORK COLLECTIVELY and THINK COLLECTIVELY every day to get food. And the monkeys will change even within a single generation. And today there are monkeys who like to walk straight. On the jelly itself, evolution is fast.
The divine 4 seraphim created plants and animals on earth from the substance of the white hole . With a lion's head created predators with a ram's head from Orion created herbivores from the sun with a bird's head created birds and a humanoid created people . All peoples have different animals Russian sheep and Scandinavians but they are red . French pigs . The Germans are goats .Asian dogs . Hindus are monkeys . Arabs hyenas etc . souls are immortal dragons from the sun and the Spirit of God creates us in the image and likeness . View the Russian language behavior and anatomy of the human embryo
Indeed, there is no such thing in nature.
Tsch. Darwin, a talented scientist, created his theory of the origin of species by natural selection from one common ancestor, because the task of explaining the appearance of all our planetary life was the most important in the struggle with the theological picture of creation.
Remaining quite logical and correct in terms of intraspecific changes (mainly climatic adaptation), he made an erroneous assumption by spreading his theory into species, classes, families, etc.
There are still plenty of adherents to his theory, although it has long been proven that this theory is a mistake.
There are quite a lot of different documents and studies on this subject on the Web. Including former ardent scientists who support this Marxism in the biosphere.
If you take the trouble to read Darwin himself, you will find his reasoning, or rather justified fears about the fallacy of his own theory.
But its modern adherents have long given up on Darwin himself and, having picked up the bogey of Darwinism thrown out by history, they persist in waving it in front of an ignorant public.
The complete absence of any transitional forms of any kind speaks for itself. Adherents of Darwin's theory delve into the genetics of worms and frogs, rejoicing as a discovery to find there some deviation that “proves” the materialistic theory of evolution.
Indeed, why not believe in such a theory, if the public is presented with a fossil series of mutations of the trilobite that led to the formation of the Przewalski horse. In the meantime, we can say about the trilobite that “the pud is as it was, it still is – 16 kilograms.” It hasn't changed at all in 500 million years.
If there is no transformation of apes into humans in nature, then why, in Darwin's opinion, did the ape still turn into a human?
The question was asked, of course, by a religious person who considers it beneath his dignity to descend from a monkey.
Calm down, dear, you are very far from the apes, because they still have everything ahead of them, but you are stuck somewhere in the Stone Age in your mental development.
And let me ask you a counter-question:
Why, if nature doesn't change water into wine, do you still believe that Jesus did this trick?
The main misconception is that there is no one to attribute creativity to the process of evolution!And then what are these advantages that a person has received after losing strong teeth, claws, hair, and having mastered walking upright? Well, go to the taiga naked or in the savanna, as your ancestors supposedly did? How long will you last there? That's it! There was no evolution! Man was immediately created as he is! A cat will never turn into a dog, and a monkey will never turn into a human! Why don't crocodiles and sharks evolve? Eh? That the environment doesn't change for them?!
Who told you that man descended from apes, these are different branches of mammals. They are monkeys, we are another branch of development.
Darwin never said we were from monkeys.
Let's wait three or four million years, and maybe the apes will turn out to be intelligent.
There is something similar to the transformation of a monkey into a Human in nature. Chimpanzees can be trained in sign language. This has been done repeatedly.
But we often see the transformation of a Person into a pig. Which can be considered an indirect confirmation of Darwinism.
No, to answer means to take someone's side))) as long as there is no physical proof of human evolution, and not of the adaptability of species, no one will answer correctly… For me, evolution is like a deliberate pursuit of perfection. Each living being, including a creature, will keep its stagnation level as long as it benefits from its current state and will begin to change, in any direction, only when the conditions for change come….
Because it doesn't happen in the proverbial nature. Re-read the OGE definition of a society: this is a group of people (it is also part of the material world), separated from nature.
Humanitarians hint at the fact that the transformation of monkeys into people occurred:
1) simultaneously (by clicking the conditional button),
2) outside the Earth (planet-by default, this is nature = the material world), presumably in a laboratory on an orbital station.
PS: I couldn't think of any other reasonable explanation.
You initially do not have a question assignment , but an incorrect initial premise that there is supposedly no transformation in nature. The bones showed a consistent transformation of autralopithecus into a human. Through several intermediate views. Naturally, it is based on the theory of evolution and should not be smooth, as the results of modeling showed.
Currently, autralopithecus does not turn into a human due to the fact that Australopithecus is not available. And no one said that any monkey should turn into a human.
And why is everything limited to apes or australopithecines or some archaeo-apes? Well, of course it all happened, this broth was brewed for hundreds of millions of years. What kind of ignoramuses can have doubts about this is generally incomprehensible, because once everything started with cells for all living beings in general. There were still billions of years before all these arch-apes, when trillions of paths of evolution started from some slugs, and we all come from there.
The so-called “Darwinian theory” is pseudoscientific. Scientists, contemporaries of Darwin, did not consider it seriously. This theory is beneficial to materialists and atheists. Therefore, it is taken as a basis, including in Russia after the revolution.
The further physicists advance in understanding the origin of the universe, the more it becomes clear that without a higher intelligence (Creator), nothing could have happened by itself.
Well, if the monkey still turned into a person, then in nature there is a transformation of monkeys into people.
Well, if the monkey still turned into a person, then in nature there is a transformation of monkeys into people.