by BlessedStar 34 Replies latest jw friends
How come we don't know the language of monkeys then?
What if you had ancestors that spoke german, that would mean you should too?
ou ou ee ee ah ah is certainly distinguishable to a learnt language that can be communicated and written huh? We are talking about a german person. A monkey is not a person.
The distinction between german ancestors and a monkey ancestor:
blessedstar
Why are there still monkeys?
Recently, at a Christian organization (which is for the most part a good organization), I heard a talk given to children that intended to show the faults with the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, the speaker made what I am afraid is an all too common error. He presented a version of evolution that no scientist believes and then proceeded to discredit that false version of evolution.
This highlights the danger of speaking to an issue that one has not researched properly. I am sure that this particular speaker did not intended to be misleading. He is simply unclear as to what the modern theory of evolution actually claims.
The first thing he said that reveals his lack of understanding was, "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around?" Now most people will hopefully realize how weak of an argument that is, but the audience was 3rd to 6th grade children who thought that it was brilliant. Not only does his question imply that evolution happens to all members of a species simultaneously, he went on to say flat out, "When an animal evolves into another animal, then there are no more of the original animal." This appears to be so clearly wrong that it seems unnecessary to write a reply to it, but there might be other people out there making this same error in logic. Note: Since I originally wrote this article, I have spoken to several people whom I know to be intelligent that have made this same argument, and I now think that it is quite necessary to address it.
The theory of evolution does not suggest that a species completely replaces it's predecessors. While it's reasonable to believe that a group of animals that is related by species and location will more or less evolve together, not all animals live in the same location. For example, any genetic changes that fruit flies in America acquire do not affect the genetic code of fruit flies in Europe. In fact, any changes that fruit flies in jar acquire, do not affect fruit flies in a jar next to them on the same shelf. Another example can be made from breeding dogs. If you successfully breed a poodle and a collie to come up with a new breed of dog, that does not mean there are no poodles or collies left.
Another flaw with his view of evolution is that scientists do not claim that man evolved from a chimpanzee, but rather that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. Odds are that the common ancestor does not exist in the exact same form anymore, but even if it did that would not discredit evolution. Creatures tend to evolve to adapt to their ever changing environment. If their environment stays the same they could remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
The speaker went on to say scientists keep changing their minds and that they don't even claim that man evolved from monkeys anymore; they now claim that man evolved from fish. Now anyone who pays attention at all to what scientists actually say will realize that this is a very bad mischaracterization. Scientists have never claimed that monkeys came into existence out of the blue and then evolved into man. If they did make a statement like "man evolved from fish" they are referring to the modern evolutionary family tree which suggests that mammals (including monkeys) evolved from sea life, and then once on land, developed into the higher mammals, including man. In fact, if you trace back far enough on the family tree, every living thing originally evolved from a common ancestor.
I would like to believe that this was an isolated event, but I am afraid that most of what people have learned for and against evolution is taught by people who do not understand it. When you teach others, especially children who are easily influenced, you have a responsibility to be truthful and accurate. In this case, the speaker had the responsibility of accurately representing the theory of evolution before proceeding to debunk it.
ou ou ee ee ah ah is certainly distinguishable to a learnt language that can be communicated and written huh? We are talking about a german person. A monkey is not a person.
I know, Im just messing with you! I dont believe in evolution either. (did i just put myself up for some asswhacking?)
If you successfully breed a poodle and a collie to come up with a new breed of dog, that does not mean there are no poodles or collies left.
Hmm a poodle and a collie are dogs = animalls. A monkey and a man are humans? We are animals then?
blessedstar
I know, Im just messing with you! I dont believe in evolution either.
aww buttlight! Now why you want to go do that for?
blessedstar
