Adaptation.

Starting from first or second base again I see.....go back to homeplate and start with abiogenesis.

Ermmmm.  Every species we can currently observe is an in-between stage.

Okay point out something that is between primate and man, something even remotely as intelligen as us.  I mean if we evolved there should be a species that is very similar to us and nearly as intelligent.

I realise from your other posts that you do not like actually doing research or learning about the topics you opine on, but it would perhaps help both your personal development and public persona.

I am educated I know what I know, I don't have to steal other peoples opinions to have one.  Also I think your own persona could do with some work.

Allow me to quote from a book called 'Every Thing Must Go' by James Ladyman and Don Ross (2007), where they comment on the limited nature of our natural intuitions in apprehending scientific theory (in general).    "The inability to grasp intuitively the vast timescales on which natural selection works is almost certainly crucial to the success of creationists in perpetuating foolish controversies about evolution".

Our well established views of the universe have far outstripped our un-informed 'common sense' ability to make sensible comments on them.  Do some research.

You can quote me all the books you like, but until you can prove man evolved from ape you are just stating your opinion.  Most pro-evolutionaries come across as if they are stating fact when all they are giving is their theory.  Their is no proof of evolution, just the proof of similar species.  Can I also add I don't care to much for your mannerism, in how you responded to my post.  If you could stick to the topic on debate and never worry about me, or how I debate, I would be greatly appreciative.

I believe evolution to be wrong, if there is evolution then why to we not see the transgression.  Now some people say it is slow and happens over thousands of years so we do not see it.  My argument is we should still see the morphing progress, I mean we should see different species in different stages for eg. going to gorilla to man.  We do not stay one species for thousand of years and then just leap into a completely different species.  People who support the pro-evolution also state how similar or genetic make up is to that of primate, and the house cats to the likes of a tiger.  Well all I can say to that is it is just similar, it does not mean one evolved from one to the other.   I just want to ask those who are pro-evolution why are there no species walking around in a sort of in between stage.  Or does a pregnant gorilla just pop out a human child at some stage.

SAdly, such is the state of human knowledge at this wonderful point in our species development, no one person can know everything known.   

Then stop acting like you do.

'Stealing other peoples opinions' is not an option.   You may have your uninformed opinions, but they are of little value if expressed  in the way you did.  If your comments on what evolution is about are expressions of your education, I am afraid you need to review it.

I gain my opinions through life, personal experience books, and many other things.  However I do not take one book read it and let it brainwash me.  Also your condescending manner makes you come across as arrogant.


Firstly, you need to be aware of the difference in usage of the word 'theory' between the scientific usage and the common one.   The theory of Gravity is a scientific use of the word.  Proven conjectures are theories, unproven ones are hypotheses. The theory that the world is flat is a theory in workaday parlance - it is not proven, it is merely a conjecture.   Whereas Natural Selection is an hypothesis, evolution is not.  Except to people who have done no research.

Theory- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well established propositions that are regarded as matter of fact.

Secondly, I quoted a view that expressed very well what I wanted to say.  You may note that I named my source, openly admitting that it was from someone else.

Someone else can be wrong to you know.

Thirdly, you object to my comments on your ignorance.  It is extremely  germaine to the argument, for if you are building reasoning on ignorance then your reasoning is not effective.  For example, man did not 'evolve from ape': both evolved from a common ancestor. There is adequate DNA evidence to support this - or don't you believe that we can analyse DNA in cells? Do believe that there are cells?

You only assume I am ignorant because I disagree with you.  Also lets take a look at some of your last sentence'There is adequate DNA evidence to support' not prove but support your THEORY.  All I have to say is that this only proves there is similarities in the genetic make up of 2 completely different species.

I believe evolution to be wrong, if there is evolution then why to we not see the transgression.

Now some people say it is slow and happens over thousands of years so we do not see it.

My argument is we should still see the morphing progress, I mean we should see different species in different stages for eg. going to gorilla to man.

We do not stay one species for thousand of years and then just leap into a completely different species.

People who support the pro-evolution also state how similar or genetic make up is to that of primate, and the house cats to the likes of a tiger.  Well all I can say to that is it is just similar, it does not mean one evolved from one to the other.

I just want to ask those who are pro-evolution why are there no species walking around in a sort of in between stage.  Or does a pregnant gorilla just pop out a human child at some stage.