Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's funny but I see a parallel between your line of reasoning about global warming and the reasoning of those who believe in creation, and deny evolution.

There are scientists who advocate creation, not evolution and there is no easy way to "prove evolution" as an absolute fact.

People have their reasons for ignoring proofs of evolution and others have their reasons for ignoring proofs of global warming.



What degree of evolution? That things change? That this change is observable? Or that man evolved from apes. If the latter, a) why are there still apes, b) where is the missing link?


where is the missing link?

Are people seriously still asking this?

There is a whole list of "human missing links" on Wikipedia[1]. The best preserved are the Australopithecus afarensis set of skeletons[2].

It is thought that A. afarensis was more closely related to the genus Homo (which includes the modern human species Homo sapiens), whether as a direct ancestor or a close relative of an unknown ancestor, than any other known primate from the same time.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis


If Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?


There is tons (literally) of evidence that evolution is real, from a wide range of independent, disparate sources.

Here's one: the fact that volcanic islands, which have land that has been historically only accessible to birds, have a number of bird species that have filled ecological niches normally filled by rodents.

Here's another: you can see in the fossil record progressive changes. Sure, there are missing links, but try coming up with an explanation that fits the islands fact (above) as well as this one. In addition, have it explain, in a way that permits further predictions, 10 other otherwise independent sources of evidence.


I cannot believe I'm reading this on HN.


a) We are apes, as are chimpanzees and gorillas and bonobos, etc.

b) I think we may have just found you.


<giggle> It's not ad hominem when the target is an ape ;-)


Your comment was also a personal insult.


Not true, the great apes are all classified as hominidae.


Your comment was a personal insult.


Only in an exceptionally mild way, and no worse than you should reasonably expect from posting absurdly uninformed critiques of basic science to a technology oriented online community. Besides, I meant it more for humour than offense, as I find it hard to resist such a good feed line.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: