PDA

View Full Version : Human Evolution Theories


Bedlam
10-08-2005, 05:34 PM
What do yall think humans will keep evolving into? or will we stop as we are now?

I've heard theories that we will become much shorter, with giant heads and be able to use a larger percentage of our brains to do stuff like comunicating telepathically and moving things with our mind.

But, also, human's have gotten much taller recently, like the average human height has grown 6 inches or something in just a few hundred years. We could keep growing taller and be a bunch of 9 foot giants or something

lemme hear your theories about what we will evolve into

Wooly Noggins
10-08-2005, 05:56 PM
some will evolve into who knows

it depends on what these people do with their everyday lives

if we sit on our asses all day 24/7

then the future will be born with no legs








we'll have no use for them

CydonianArtifact
10-08-2005, 07:58 PM
My theory is that aliens ( lil green men ) are really humans from the future experimenting with time travel ....

SlightlySlightedFan
10-09-2005, 05:54 AM
Many people say that humans have stopped evolving. I think that humans will be forced to evolve. I think there will be a need to deal with a much harsher environment. This theory only holds up if the environment doesn't get to trashed to extinct us all very abruptly.
Also, humans are bigger in general now because of the amount of nutrients we get. Especially at restaurants.
________
marijuana strain green crack (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/green-crack)

SubtleEnergies
10-09-2005, 06:55 AM
I don't believe in evolution personally.

I believe spiritually we will evolve but not physically.

J-Cee
10-10-2005, 05:41 AM
yeh i think we will evolve basically around our environment as most things do.

Lets just say in the future that the world was covered by water with no land ,we'd evolve gills or features like that to do with your envoronment yknow.

Soul Controller
10-10-2005, 08:43 AM
evolution is a fucking illusion

happened millions of years ago
still happening
but u cant feel the effect or see the effect for millions of years

rofl

classic
better than religion!!!!

LHX
10-10-2005, 08:44 AM
the ability to take many forms will ensure immortality

SoNoFman
10-11-2005, 01:57 PM
imagine what those pretzel bboys 5 generations from now would be doin,they constantly pushing the purposes of the human anatomy to its limit

My First Timbs
10-12-2005, 02:09 PM
there is no way to predict.. evolution isa process driven by environmental stress.. our environment and living situations dictate the flow of evolution.. if one was to take a guess.. we would assume that humanity would become alot less physical in nature.. meaning a decrease in body weight and decrease in body height...

some studies have already shown that the human thumb is getting closer to the index finger over the last 80 years...

Wu-Tality
10-12-2005, 02:30 PM
bullet deflecting skin, able to eat more fat food, born with clothes on.

SubtleEnergies
10-12-2005, 06:37 PM
LMAO if the world was covered in water we would evole gills?!

Do you know how unlikely that is? Its not possible. About as possible as fish coming on land.

I wanted to make an evolution thread but I don't think it could be discussed maturely...

SubtleEnergies
10-12-2005, 06:38 PM
I agree with soul controller...its a bigger con than religion...

My First Timbs
10-12-2005, 07:50 PM
LMAO if the world was covered in water we would evole gills?!

Do you know how unlikely that is? Its not possible. About as possible as fish coming on land.

I wanted to make an evolution thread but I don't think it could be discussed maturely...
its not entirely unfathomable.....there really is no limit to genetic variance under the control of environmental stress.. this is why we have a planet teeming with everything from electric eels to zebras.

when one doesnt really understand genetics and evolution its easy to dismiss what appears to be irrational but in actuality is quite rational and plausible

K.E.G.
10-12-2005, 11:13 PM
We will evolve from such things as radiation and chemical sensitivity that's in our environment
No one here will be able to see what actually does happen.......maybe. There will be cancerous or poisonous consumption and absorption every single day of people's lives. The ancient ones will still reside hardly harmed in the middle east and the commercial zones will do more damage to themselves.
Tribes will remain one with their long lasting life styles and continue an undisturbed nature until nature is burned, errupted, weathered, or catches a cold which for some reason isn't cured yet either.

7EL7
10-13-2005, 12:40 AM
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/1075/okko8cv.jpg

My First Timbs
10-13-2005, 12:50 AM
ahahahaha

SubtleEnergies
10-13-2005, 01:28 AM
ACTUALLY it is totally unfathomable. Yeah the planets teeming with eels and zebras, but not fucking transformers.

Whens the last time an Eel came on land?

Wake up! Why is there not a single transitional form in the fossil record?

Not to mention a sea creature and a land creature have other differences besides a lung and gill.

Also there is no evidence of GENETIC VARIATION, as you call it, due to environmental stress, beyond the very small. It has never turned one species into another. The fossil record proves this. The only adaption due to environment is the elimination of faults in a species.

The genetic code is very complex and any MUTATIONS in it disrupt it and are ALWAYS harmful. There have been experiments on this with hundreds of thousands of fruit flies and not a single useful mutuation ever happened. What's more mutations are just stuff ups in a genetic code and aren't passed on to the next generation. If a guy is born with one hand deformed, are his kids? You will never hear of it.

Don't say shit on here with out referencing some evidence or I will hunt you down. :P

SubtleEnergies
10-13-2005, 01:30 AM
And if anyone here doesn't understand this shit it's YOU!

You sound like you got what your saying from your high school class.

Explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record for a start!

My First Timbs
10-13-2005, 01:37 AM
i have a Ph.D in Evolution subtle energy.. i know exactly what im talking about

evolution whether micro or mega is provable and verifiable. all genetic mutations are not harmful.

its a shame that in the year 2005 we still have to debate genetic variation

7EL7
10-13-2005, 01:41 AM
And if anyone here doesn't understand this shit it's YOU!

You sound like you got what your saying from your high school class.

Explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record for a start!


i have a Ph.D in Evolution subtle energy.. i know exactly what im talking about


lmao !

Longbongcilvaringz
10-13-2005, 01:46 AM
ACTUALLY it is totally unfathomable. Yeah the planets teeming with eels and zebras, but not fucking transformers.

Whens the last time an Eel came on land?

Wake up! Why is there not a single transitional form in the fossil record?

Not to mention a sea creature and a land creature have other differences besides a lung and gill.

Also there is no evidence of GENETIC VARIATION, as you call it, due to environmental stress, beyond the very small. It has never turned one species into another. The fossil record proves this. The only adaption due to environment is the elimination of faults in a species.

The genetic code is very complex and any MUTATIONS in it disrupt it and are ALWAYS harmful. There have been experiments on this with hundreds of thousands of fruit flies and not a single useful mutuation ever happened. What's more mutations are just stuff ups in a genetic code and aren't passed on to the next generation. If a guy is born with one hand deformed, are his kids? You will never hear of it.

Don't say shit on here with out referencing some evidence or I will hunt you down. :P


i agree with you that humans will never grow gills and shit like that, that kind of evolution would take billions of year, so therefore it is improbable but not impossible. one species cannot turn into another but a species can undergo adaptations in order to adapt to there surroundings. using the word mutation is incorrect if you are referring to a change which an aniaml undergoes to adapt to there environment, mutations are anomolies, thus they can't be considered as evolution.

on the question, human will just evolve to suit their environments, if this means becoming taller or having better eyesite or something like that then so be it. but human wont just grow giant heads and become giants overnight. evolution into human took millions of year so the probability of a complete change is unlikely unless there is some sort of outside disruption.
:eggy:

SubtleEnergies
10-13-2005, 02:00 AM
LOL You have a degree in bullshit...

Ok show me then. Prove it


Transitional forms I asked for?

SubtleEnergies
10-13-2005, 02:01 AM
And a univeristy qualification doesn't necessarily means one knows what they are talking about...I am at uni....biggest joke ever lol..

SubtleEnergies
10-13-2005, 02:23 AM
Look at you with your THOUSANDS of books sold promoting the fact that evolution disproves the Existence of God....

Ignorant fool...

So in your book a call to sanity, you're saying what? Religion is INSANITY?

Based on this unfounded BULLSHIT you call evolution.

There is more scientific evidence for the existence of God than evolution.

7EL7
10-13-2005, 02:33 AM
There is more scientific evidence for the existence of God than evolution.


HUH ?

nut_end
10-13-2005, 07:06 AM
evolve into what flying tree swinging water breathing fur carrying marsupials? or use that brain to better cognicize the macro and micro cosm as to what where dealing with - so far mapped the solar systenm and beyond bore to the earth's crust laid out the elements of this planet the major life forms and sub divisions cracked the code for life dna wise can manipulate life forms or enviornments to suit physical/mental health -> but will never have any of what the peoples of ancient antiquity had some sembalance of what we call peace and/or cultivation of what they called supreme good -> instead people are tracked and geard to live life to the fullest - life is short live fast get rich or live dull and feel like shit - more a change of mind states then anything about darwinism.

are the so-called freaks a jump in evolution or some inside mischief created by nature as sees fit to either hint or tell of what could be or warn as to experiments unjustified? <- just a question

LHX
10-13-2005, 07:51 AM
every time you learn something new you evolve


guess what happens to those who stop learning...

My First Timbs
10-13-2005, 11:03 AM
i agree with you that humans will never grow gills and shit like that, that kind of evolution would take billions of year, so therefore it is improbable but not impossible. one species cannot turn into another but a species can undergo adaptations in order to adapt to there surroundings. using the word mutation is incorrect if you are referring to a change which an aniaml undergoes to adapt to there environment, mutations are anomolies, thus they can't be considered as evolution.

on the question, human will just evolve to suit their environments, if this means becoming taller or having better eyesite or something like that then so be it. but human wont just grow giant heads and become giants overnight. evolution into human took millions of year so the probability of a complete change is unlikely unless there is some sort of outside disruption.
:eggy:
incorrect

evolution and mutation are one in the same thing.. ppl have this blown up misconception of what evolution really is..

no.. it doesnt have to take millions let alone billions of years (it could be seen to happen in about 1 year depending on the environment and the change hat occurred)

alll that evolution is a change in the genes/genetic pool of a species over a given amount of time (delta g divided by delta t)

the quickest way to get this genetic change/genetic variance/genetic diversity is thru genetic mustation... the public for some reason has some misconception about the word "mutation".. not all mutations are detrimental (humanity wouldnt exist if they were all detrimental).. some are quite beneficial and thus if coupled with aiding the environment allow forms of evokution to occur.

the vague general questions and statements being asked her are so off kilter that it owuld take about 300 pages of text to refute every little point and provide alleged "proof".. first i would have to explain and bring u up to speed on every concept that plays into genetics.. then make sure we are up to speed in every concept that plays into inhertiance.. nd then from their i must bring u up 2 speed on how exactly evolution and differential reproductive success works.. and im supposed to do that on a music forum when meanwhile.. 500 page books ar ewritten to address those issues..

better yet.. i have already begun this process.. check out my website

www.acalltosanity.com/evolutioneasilyexplained.html (http://www.acalltosanity.com/evolutioneasilyexplained.html)

My First Timbs
10-13-2005, 11:04 AM
Look at you with your THOUSANDS of books sold promoting the fact that evolution disproves the Existence of God....

Ignorant fool...

So in your book a call to sanity, you're saying what? Religion is INSANITY?

Based on this unfounded BULLSHIT you call evolution.

There is more scientific evidence for the existence of God than evolution.
nope thats not what its about

My First Timbs
10-13-2005, 11:06 AM
And a univeristy qualification doesn't necessarily means one knows what they are talking about...I am at uni....biggest joke ever lol..very true!

but that coupled with years of experience in the field (let alone working in a discipline that only exists because it is based on the facts of evolution)

i deal with verifiable evolution every single day.. its what my whole career is based on..

its like an astronomer studying the "heavens" and then someone comes along with no real solid argument, but nonetheless comes along and says... "u know there is no such thing as stars right". its all bullsh*t

lol.. thats what ur doing... in a situation as such, (when a field is established and efficacious).. the burden of proof is on you! evolution has all the facts and evidence on its side and is well established.. any who claim otherwise have the burden of prooving their claim.. otherwise stop wasting everyone's time

SubtleEnergies
10-14-2005, 05:52 AM
NO, that's what you are doing.

Large parts of "science" is filled with gaping holes and evolution is one.

I wouldl ike to discuss this open mindedly with you, but you are avoiding the questions I am asking.

Would you be so kind as to solve them, as these are my doubts on evolution.

Kennings
10-14-2005, 05:56 PM
Im kinda w. SubtleEnergies cuz the same questions he proposed is what I usually do. Like they have this perfect systematic model of how a monkey became man (which I cannot believe I came from a monkey) but you never ever see anything like for example...what were the stages a rabbit went to before it was fully a rabbit. Or what was the monkey before it was a monkey? and the hope from an ape to man is a pretty large jump.

Even a cell developing flagella...thats a crazy mutation. I never heard of a human jes sprouting some form of a tail. But I dont have ne kind of ph.d, just observation

My First Timbs
10-14-2005, 06:04 PM
Im kinda w. SubtleEnergies cuz the same questions he proposed is what I usually do. Like they have this perfect systematic model of how a monkey became man (which I cannot believe I came from a monkey) but you never ever see anything like for example...what were the stages a rabbit went to before it was fully a rabbit. Or what was the monkey before it was a monkey? and the hope from an ape to man is a pretty large jump.

Even a cell developing flagella...thats a crazy mutation. I never heard of a human jes sprouting some form of a tail. But I dont have ne kind of ph.d, just observationthis is where formal study comes into play.. the evolutionary stages for horses, rabbits and almost every creatuyre u can name are indeed known..

its just that ppl dont talk about them because its not as controversial as monkey to man.

and btw most ppl dont c themselves as related to a monkey because of personal reasons.. not because of the evidence.. the evidence is there.. the fossil evidence is there and more importantly the MOLECULAR and GENETIC evidence is there!!! thats most important and cant be refuted ! so even if one wants to cling to a weak claim of a lack of fossils u still have to xplain the genetic and molecular evidence in favor of evolution!

the transition of eartly tetrapods to quadripedal mammals to what lead to the rabbit is well known and understood (RABBITS AND HARES ARE AN EARLY OFFSHOOT FROM THE "RODENTIA" CLASS).. its just that most of this stuff is only deeply discussed and learned in formal graduate level courses!

about cells and flagella.. the mutation isnt crazy at all if one understands the nature of biochemistry and what makes the flagella! one must undertsand that fully b4 understanding fow a flagella or even cilia come to be!

in modern science, all of these questions have already been put to rest

LORD NOSE
10-14-2005, 08:42 PM
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/2605/ovumattack0xk.png

SubtleEnergies
10-15-2005, 03:02 AM
You still have totally avoided what I said.

I asked for examples of transitional forms, and you go on to say "yes, transition of these animals is well known." Now, you are meant to have a PHD so stop playin dumb.

HORSES
Until recently, an imaginary sequences supposedly showing the evolution of horse was advanced as the principal theory of evolution. Today however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bullshit.

Evolutionist Boyce Rensberger delivere an address to 150 evolutionists saying horse evolution has no grounds in the fossil record and that there is no evolutionary process observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creature living nearly 50 million years ago to todays much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. [b] Transitional forms are unknown.

The famous paleontologist Colin Patterson, a director of the Natural History Museum of England where the "evolution of the horse" schemes were on display, said the following about this exhibition which was still being shown to the public on the ground floor of the museum:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particulalry when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of that stuff.


The horse evolution scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts that were devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at VASTLY DIFFERENT PERIODS in India, South Africa, North America and Europe. There are more than 20 charts of horse evolution (Yo, Yeldell, that don't sound too well "known" nor scientific to me!). Evolutionists have reached no common agreement on the issue of these family trees, which are totally different from each other by the way. The only common point of these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called "Eohippus" that lived in the Eocene Period 55 million years ago was the ancestor of the horse. But, the supposed evolutionary lines from Eohippus to the modern horse are totally inconsistent.

Evolutionary scientist writer Gordon R Taylor in his book (Sold a few more copies than Yeldell's :)) :
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontogists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change....The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. but the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus (horse) is very eratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.




FUCK YOUR HORSE THEORY!
And as for that monkey shit, although you seem to be a transitional form I can list off 100 times as many reasons this theory isn't possible. Which I shall do later.
:)

SubtleEnergies
10-15-2005, 03:04 AM
Kennings....I will show you later how we did NOT come from any moneky....

And what they once said were our "Ancestors" are now admitted to be our cousins. Some even similar to modern races.

(No shit! Darwin was racist as all fuck)

Ronin
10-15-2005, 10:25 AM
evolution exists, at 4 weeks a fetus has a reptilian like tale. a link to the past

dna changes, humans have adapted and evolved since their conception

002
10-15-2005, 10:29 AM
evolution exists, at 4 weeks a fetus has a reptilian like tale. a link to the past

dna changes, humans have adapted and evolved since their conception
yea, too bad we invented religion.... we would've been a lot further if it wasn't for this shit

peace

Ronin
10-15-2005, 10:39 AM
maybe, i personally feel religiuon is usually the scapegoat cus its inanimate but i in no way see it as important, to me at least

LHX
10-15-2005, 11:32 AM
religion

like entertainment

is a trick to the eyes
and pretty much all the other senses

is there a difference between religion and hollywood?
cheering for your favorite team on autumn sundays like it matters?

ouch

SubtleEnergies
10-15-2005, 10:14 PM
Ronin you fuckin idiot. Don't ruin this thread with unfounded bullshit. After my last past your justification for evolution is a TAIL -LIKE appearance in a fetus.

A link to our reptillian past? LMAO

SubtleEnergies
10-16-2005, 04:12 AM
Just for all the idiots...the tail like look is actually the spine in the fetus...LOL.

LORD NOSE
10-16-2005, 04:37 AM
Just for all the idiots...the tail like look is actually the spine in the fetus...LOL.


LOL - AND WHAT IS THE TAIL ON A REPTILE ?

A SWALLOWED SNAKE ?

SubtleEnergies
10-16-2005, 04:51 AM
My point was that just because the spine develops faster does not make it a FUCKING TAIL! DOES IT?!

The difference between a reptile is that its spine develops to eventually include a tail. OUR DOESN'T! NEVER HAS!

We can find fossils from before human times. If humans with tails existed the fossils would be numerous.

Please Sunny, don't you go ignorant on me too :|

Ronin
10-16-2005, 07:18 AM
rofl

fucking bible bashers

My First Timbs
10-16-2005, 02:51 PM
sorry ive been away for a couple of days and couldnt respond.. i have a lot to say .. stay tuned.

LORD NOSE
10-16-2005, 04:03 PM
My point was that just because the spine develops faster does not make it a FUCKING TAIL! DOES IT?!

The difference between a reptile is that its spine develops to eventually include a tail. OUR DOESN'T! NEVER HAS!

We can find fossils from before human times. If humans with tails existed the fossils would be numerous.

Please Sunny, don't you go ignorant on me too :|


YOU NEVER HEARD OF OR SEEN PICTURES OF BABIES BORN WITH TAILS ?

Prince Rai
10-16-2005, 04:05 PM
YOU NEVER HEARD OF OR SEEN PICTURES OF BABIES BORN WITH TAILS ?
hmm i actually have

My First Timbs
10-16-2005, 07:03 PM
human babies have indeed been born with "tails" or an extended coccyx.

This is indeed evidence of evolution simply from a genetic/molecular perspective.

See this is the thing.. ppl can use old out dated arguments on transitional follsils and what not , but u cant refute the genetic and molecular evidence!

human beings should not have the genetic "instructions" to produce an anomalous "tail" if we werent the descendants of prior ancestors who had tails! there is no way possible to possess the amino acid sequences needed to develop a tail if it wasnt in our evolutionary history!

but one with knowledge of evolution and phylogeny would expect this! we would expect vestiges of our evolutionary past to manifest themself as biological anomalies every now and then simply because we still possess the genetic sequences to produce these structres!

similarly whales possess the genes needed to produce hind legs and as u would expect. every once in a while there are whales born with functional vestiges of hind limbs! why would whales produce hind limbs if it wasnt in their evolutionary history that they are related to tetrapod land animals that once walked on land!

the fossil evidence is once thing but the genetic and molecular evidence puts it all to rest.

i will address the other posts n a few

SubtleEnergies
10-17-2005, 01:31 AM
An extended coccyx is like any other birth defect and doesn't prove shit. I have seen babies born with two heads, that doesn't mean we have the DNA for it ...nor that we evolved from some bi-cranial species.

As for the molecular level, evolution is more disproved here. I will write on this when I have some reliable references at hand.

And Yeldell, I will tell you once. Stop speaking down. "One with knowledge of blah blah...." I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying. So stop acting like you the only one on here with a fuckin degree!

My First Timbs
10-19-2005, 12:54 PM
An extended coccyx is like any other birth defect and doesn't prove shit. I have seen babies born with two heads, that doesn't mean we have the DNA for it ...nor that we evolved from some bi-cranial species.

As for the molecular level, evolution is more disproved here. I will write on this when I have some reliable references at hand.

And Yeldell, I will tell you once. Stop speaking down. "One with knowledge of blah blah...." I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying. So stop acting like you the only one on here with a fuckin degree!
I am in no way speaking down to anyone.. im just stating the obvious.. one with knowledge of genetics and evolution (and all of its subdivisions) wouldn’t be making ridiculous claims that have been put to rest well over 50 years ago.. one in these circles stays up to date with whats goin on in the scientific and evolutionary community and understands the weaknesses of the alleged arguments against it.

An extended coccyx is in no way merely a simple little birth defect……. see this is what im talking about…. “one with knowledge of genetics and evolution” would understand the true nature of a what exactly a birth defect is and how vestiges can manifest themselves.

The extended coccyx isnt merely an elongated bone by defection.. im talking about a continued appendage with the necessary morphology of a tail! (the S1, S2, S3 and sometimes S4 vertebrae!)

If it was a mere extended bone, it would not have the necessary vertebral subparts that all primate tails exactly have!

Imigine this….. I have a pet goldfish… my pet goldfish has babies one day.. in the babies I notice that there is a “birth defect” that creates a nipple on its belly….. THIS WOULD BE NONSENSICAL… u know why?.. because fish evolved before the evolution of mammals.. and thus it would be impossible for fish dna to spontaneously produce by defect a nipple!

On the other hand, it is totally possible for humans
and any other primate to spontaneously from time to time produce any anatomical feature from our evolutionary past in some way shape or form because its already in or DNA ! one little mistake during zygote formation in our mother’s womb and oops.. nature creatues a human baby with a developed tail appendage following the genetic instructions ingrained in our dna from 1 million years ago.

SubtleEnergies
10-20-2005, 01:05 AM
LOL that's exactly what you are doing. Claiming you can trace the evolution of animals when I talk about transitional forms, yet when I post exposing the bullshit in your theories you THEN , and only then, decide to call it outdated. Why didn't you state that originally instead of trying to use outdated info to support your view? Coz you are full of it!

You are the one lacking knowledge here. Stop changing topics every time you get stuck (although that's what evolutionists do best right?).

This whole thread you have no constructively put your point accross in anyway. If oyu have something of use to say say it. When I ask you something ADDRESS IT! and maybe when can build here.

My First Timbs
10-20-2005, 10:02 AM
^ this whole post was an attempt to avoid the matter. i know what im talking about.

THE W
10-20-2005, 11:12 AM
^ this whole post was an attempt to avoid the matter. i know what im talking about.hey man explain the two heads and siamese twins thing. are saying that conjoined twins are mere birth defects but an elongated coccyx is not?

im not claiming to know anything about this cuz i dont im just and observer asking some questions.

My First Timbs
10-20-2005, 04:02 PM
--- let me clarify what exactly i mean... first and foremost.. of course an elongated coccyx is indeed a birth defect.. i was stressing the point that u cant merely label an elongated coccyx as a "mere" birth defect without thinking anything of it.. they are all birth defects (ie, mistakes made during zygote formation), but alas.. this is where the distinsction begins and attention to the details is critical!

there are many types of "birth defects", some involve fertilization issues (such as the case with a sperm fertilizing an egg that begins to divide and halfway thru it encounters an error and thus we end up with a baby with 2 heads).. thats one kind of birth defect!



and then you have the more important type.. the type that we are talking about in this discussion.. birth defects that occur because a sperm fertilizes an egg and the egg divides normally and undergoes development into a homo sapien, but along the way, instead of following the genetic instructions needed to make a fully functional homo sapien, it mistakenly "reverts" back to old genetic data imprinted in our dna and REACTIVATES certain proteins that code for the production of an extinct appendage such as a TAIL.

they are 2 totally different types of birth defects, but sadly.. ppl seem to lump them together without understanding and thinking of the facts and details.



so in closing.. u can either have a birth defect resulting from a physical/mechanical problem during zygote formation..... such is teh case with a 2 headed or conjoined person!.... or u can have a birth defect that results from a genetic anomaly.. such as the case as a human being born with a tail... the genetic anomaly in this case can only occur simply because our genes already have the codes bult into them how exactly to create a tail...

why would our dna have this data inside it if we are not related to creatures that once had tails!.. its very simple.


and btw.. this doesnt just occur in ppl.. it occurs in every other animal on the planet
its the reason modern pythons sometimes have leg appendages.. its the reasons birds and other ovivaptorour creatures sometimes start to develop teeth while in the egg (modern birds dont have teeth, but the extinct reptilian ones did indeed have teeth, so mother nature every once in a while makes a mistake and creates a modern bird with teeth utilizing the still present dna and genetic instructions all brirds possess to be able to have teeth!

THE W
10-20-2005, 05:40 PM
so what do these tails on these human babies look like exactly? is it like a stub just above their ass? as they grow older what does it look like? has their been a documanted case where a human had a full blown tail?

Bedlam
10-20-2005, 08:09 PM
damn, i created a ruckus in here... I am a firm believer in evolution, and I'm glad I got My First Timbs arguing pro-evolution, considering he has a phd in it.

SubtleEnergies
10-21-2005, 08:42 PM
No timbs you DICKHEAD. Maybe you need to go back to college and work on your English, coz you missing the point!

You haven't addressed one point I have brought up! And I will not move on to new points you have brought up until you do so, so we can have some structure to the discussion!

Now, the fossil record argument is outdated? As far as I know you never gave us an EXPLANATION for it. Or is that what you evolutionists do :

"This one's taking too long, let's outdate it!"

It is still just as fucking relevant. Unless you meant that you don't believe evolution happens above the molecular level? But I highly doubt that.

NOW for your next post let me tell you what I am asking for (make it easy for you) :

1. Your explanation of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record ("It's outdated" not being one).

2. I want a documented cases with references and sources I can view showing animals with the past DNA of their ancestors with things such as tails in humans or whatever. Coz I am believing this about as much as the horse fossil record.

THE W
10-22-2005, 08:42 PM
so what do these tails on these human babies look like exactly? is it like a stub just above their ass? as they grow older what does it look like? has their been a documanted case where a human had a full blown tail?
i'd really like to get an answer to these questions from timbs or anyone else who has knowledge on this subject.

SubtleEnergies
10-23-2005, 06:08 AM
Another point I would like to make with the tail thing. You used the formation of actual spinal discs as evidence that it was in their DNA code. I actually KNOW a guy in real life who has a condition where he was born with 2 spinal cords. Are you saying his DNA has the record for a whole new spinal cord from a past ancestor?

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 10:06 AM
i will address ur statements subtle energy.. no problem.. hold on a sec

i explain everything i type and i dont copy and paste..

and wade,, yea, the human tail appendages look like hairless "pig tail" like structures.

hectis
10-24-2005, 10:59 AM
I don't think humans will be envolving any time soon but they have to change because the world is getting hotter and there can be another ice age soon I agree that humans might start devolving because all the chemicals in the air ground and water will have an effect on our kids

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 11:33 AM
change is change

there is no such thing as "Devolving".. creatures only can evolve.. change is change

people misunderstand evolution and place positive conotations with the word "evolve" (as it it involves what we consider to be "progress") and place negative conotations of the word "devolve" which isnt reallya recognized word.

if a creature changes, it has evolved... we humans selectively place our subjective opinion on the change, but nontheless a change no matter how it manifests itself.. as long as it it inheritable is evolution.

the chemicals in teh ground may have a positive effect one day down the line.

THE W
10-24-2005, 11:44 AM
did we evolved exclusivesly from monkeys or could we have evolved from other species?

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 03:38 PM
our ancestors evolved from creatures that we would today classify as a monkey. i quadrepedal primate with increased hand, foot and brain size that lives in close knit social groups.

from the quadrepeds sprang forth the bipedal primates (our closest ancestor) walking upright gave a tremendous benefit to lifestyle.

so in a nutshell, yes we come from monkeys, but none of the monkeys u see alive today.. our closest relatives are not monkeys to this day.. our closest ancestors alive today would be any of the apes and great apes... but remember, we didnt come from the great apes! we came from an extinct bipedal primate that lead to the evolution of us and teh great apes.. think of the great apes alive today as distant cousins.. we didnt come from them and they didnt come from us, but we share the same exact lineage!

the genetics involved proves this.

people always say "how could we come from monkeys if monkeys are still around".. thats nonsense.. evolution deals with splits, splinters and off shoots of the main family lineage or tree!

all living creatures on this planet are related (distant cousins of eachother).. we all come from the same "stuff" and share one ancestor in common.. (that ancestor being whatever was the 1st living cell on ths planet)..

this is why the genetic code of yeast issimilar to thegenetic code of a human.. why? because we are related... we are distant cousins of yeast !

the human genetic code is 40% identical to the genetic code of an apple.. why? because apples and humans share a common ancestor! that ancestor being whatever the first organism was that lead to the off shoot from plant to animal! (most likely a form of algae)!

THE W
10-24-2005, 03:50 PM
so you're saying that humans are related to ducks, cows, and misquitos.........and cantalopes!?

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 04:08 PM
so you're saying that humans are related to ducks, cows, and misquitos.........and cantalopes!?
EXACTLY !!!

now u see how far reaching evolution really is.. its not just simply monkeys and man.. it encomapasses all life on this planet!

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 04:18 PM
if the first living creature on this very planet was a simple one celled organism and that one celled organism gave rise to all forms of life we know today.. then obviously all creatures from bacterium to zebras are related!

this is what a theory is all about.. evolution theoretcally predicted this way before we had dna and genomic data and technology and low and behold once we analyzed the genomic data of all creatures we found that we are indeed all related.. some more than others (the ones the most recently "split" from the evolutionary lineage)

for ex) tangerines are about 98% genetically similar to florida oranges.. we of course would expect this because they look and taste and appear similar.. so similar that tangerines must be a very recent off shoot from the native orange species...

humans are about roughly 20% genetically similar to oranges... thats amazing but once again its EXPECTED! its expected because humans and oranges share a recent common ancestor from many millions of years ago! that ancestor being a very very early multicellular creature (also known as eukaryotes).

humans are about 70% genetically similar to a modern mouse!.. this is also expected because we are oth mammals and have the same life processes.. looking at the genetic code of a mouse allows us to basically peer millions of years in the past of mammalian history! so far into the past that we reach a time where humans and mice share a commonancestor.. that ancestor being an early mammal that gave rise to a branch of crreatures called the rodents and also gave rise to another branch of the evolutionary "tree" that gave rise to the primates and consequently Wade and Jason

THE W
10-24-2005, 04:21 PM
alright,

so you have illustrated that we have similar DNA as other living organisms and creatures. what proof is there that one definately came from another?

similar but not related?

SubtleEnergies
10-24-2005, 06:29 PM
Yeah, we are similar. We aare all life forms that exist on the same planet under the same conditions. We also all breathe oxygen. This doesn't mean we are the same. It means we were made for our conditions.


Also, Timbs. isn't it true our "ancestors" such as homo erectus, neaderthrals etc are now thought by alot of scientists to be our COUSINS rather than ANCESTORS?

I read also that some resemble races living today. That there is as much difference between an equatorial african and a caucasian and a human and some of these "ancestors."

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 08:33 PM
alright,

so you have illustrated that we have similar DNA as other living organisms and creatures. what proof is there that one definately came from another?

similar but not related?
the proof is within the sentence if one thinks about it.. i mean what more proof can i offer rather than to bring u into a lab and show u the gel electrophoresis?

if a creature shares its genetic code with another creature.. they are RELATED. there are no ifs and buts about that.

what type of evidence do u have in mind? the dna evidence (the evidence of genetic homology.. which is basically what im discussing) is the best evidence in the world.

its liek asking someone on the maury povich show who just had the dna testing show that they are the father of a child ask... "but how do i know that im related to this child"..

the answer is beacuse there are certain domains (think of them as units or proteins) that reside on your dna that are indicative of you and your family lineage... if another creature has those same domains (let alone 74% of them!) then we can be rest assured that they are highly related!.. not merely similar..

similar is " oh a whales fin in similar to a flipper of a turtle".. thats an obscure similarity.. but does not prove that whales are related to turtles..... but guess what...! whales are indeed related to turtles! they share a common ancestor.. (humans share this common ancestor too by the way)

here is the lineage

lets make it simple...

Creature A ( a modified fish-like creature from 200 million years ago..think of an amphibian...like a salamander)

undergoes "evolution" over 100,000 thousand years giving rise to a new species called Creature B (a fully land dwelling quadriped.. the first reptile...) ... more time passes and eventually we end up with Creature C (the precursor to the first mammal.. ie, loss of scales for hair/fur, becomes warm blooded.. modified reproductive system.. etc etc).. .... years pass and Creature C now gives rise to Creature D ( a mammal that has took back to the waters but yet still retaining the successful mammalian characteristics (ie warm blooded, live young... etc etc)

in this simplified example.. we can see that "Creature B" is a species of animal that lead to the development of the Turtle.. however.. "Creature D" (a descendant of Creature B) is a fully aquatic mammal ( a whale!)

Creature D is related to Creature B.. not simply similar to it.. its a blood/genetic relative.

and thats what evolution is all about.. thats what we have going on in the world multiplied by a million things and a million differenrt factors and variables.. its very complex.

the whales fin/flipper is similar to the turtles arm/flipper because they are directly related! the whales flipper is nothing but a MODIFIED mammal arm! the mammalian arm is nothing but a modified reptilian arm. the reptilian arm is nothing but a modifed fish fin !

the genetic data proves this... whales are more closely related to us than they are turtles, but yet still are related to turtles as are we! we all stem from CREATURE A

SubtleEnergies
10-24-2005, 08:45 PM
I am sorry, but to me the facdt that we are made of similar stuff does not prove to me that we are the same thing.

I could probably show coke is made up on molecular level very similarly to water. Doesn't mean they are the same.

Also, just because we are similar....why do you assume a particular order? Isn't assuming we came from monkeys based solely on this similarity? So why didn't monkeys come from us? That's a great new theory! Now I am an evolutionist. They are probably exiled Europeans who turned into monkeys. LOL.

The fact that everything is similar to everything proves MY point not yours. Apart from the strength of the similarites humans could have come from oranges from your point of view. Get the fuck out... Also aren't we genetically similar to pigs? So why did we come from monkeys? By the way...where is the cave man dna coming from?

I don't need to be taken into a lab, coz I do believe what you are saying. I just don't see that it proves shit. We are all related by having the same basic make up.That's as strong a relationship as I have to a rcok (both being made of electrons). Its not coz I evolved from a rock. It's because we were created in similar conditions.

Also, you haven't adressed my issue about our ancestors.

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 08:45 PM
Yeah, we are similar. We aare all life forms that exist on the same planet under the same conditions. We also all breathe oxygen. This doesn't mean we are the same. It means we were made for our conditions.


Also, Timbs. isn't it true our "ancestors" such as homo erectus, neaderthrals etc are now thought by alot of scientists to be our COUSINS rather than ANCESTORS?

I read also that some resemble races living today. That there is as much difference between an equatorial african and a caucasian and a human and some of these "ancestors."the fact that we all breath oxygen is indeed nothing special.. but if one digs deeper than that then the truth makes itself clear... all creatures share similarities on one level or another,, the degree oor percent of relation only makes itself evident if one digs back far enuff in time when those 2 creatures share a direct relative.

but yes.. u are correct.. u cant tell relation simply by function or aaction of the creature! u have to go by the genetics! and thats why im stressing it.. im not talking about mere physical/ mechanical abilities and then saying.. they are similar therefore related.. thats what u are doing!

im going by the objective genomic data.. the percent of the genetic code that they share!

the reason u cant go by the action or ability and then tell if something is dir4ectly related because there are diferent types of evolution! (again,, its very complex!)

if i were to look at the wing of a bat and then the wing of a bird.. i would be foolish to assume that birds and bats are directly related! (remember, the key here is the word directly, because after all.. if u dig back far enuff in time.. u will see that they are related, just not directly!)

the bats wing and the birds wing are examples of convergent evolution (evolution that modifies an existing appendage to suit its environment or duty in 2 different species but yet the end result by mother nature are similar structures )

the bats wing is a modified mammalian forearm and hand with fingers (think of your hand having webbing between the fingers and webbing between the forearm and shoulder.. evolution created the bats wing from an already existing mammal arm.... thats totally diferent than the wing of a bird which is directly descending from the forearm of a reptile.. its a stroke of luck that both creatures ended up in similar environments that they both would have to evolve a wing in similar form.. but they are not direct relatives! thats teh beauty of evolution.. its all based on your environment coupled with whats beneficial for your lifestyle all wrapped up in a stroke of chance/luck.

we humans are highly related to bats.. we arent descendants of bats (this is where ppl go wrong and think that relatiuon means u must come from it).. we are highly related to bats because we all stem from a very recent mammal.

SubtleEnergies
10-24-2005, 08:50 PM
I see what you are saying. But my point is this. We are all related in the sense that we are all inhabitants of this planet. So it doesn't surprise me that we share dna anymore than it surprises me that we breath oxygen. I don't see how DNA's being in some way similar means that I came from a monkey like creature?

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 08:53 PM
I am sorry, but to me the facdt that we are made of similar stuff does not prove to me that we are the same thing.

I could probably show coke is made up on molecular level very similarly to water. Doesn't mean they are the same.

Also, just because we are similar....why do you assume a particular order? Isn't assuming we came from monkeys based solely on this similarity? So why didn't monkeys come from us? That's a great new theory! Now I am an evolutionist. They are probably exiled Europeans who turned into monkeys. LOL.

The fact that everything is similar to everything proves MY point not yours. Apart from the strength of the similarites humans could have come from oranges from your point of view. Get the fuck out... Also aren't we genetically similar to pigs? So why did we come from monkeys? By the way...where is the cave man dna coming from?

I don't need to be taken into a lab, coz I do believe what you are saying. I just don't see that it proves shit. We are all related by having the same basic make up.That's as strong a relationship as I have to a rcok (both being made of electrons). Its not coz I evolved from a rock. It's because we were created in similar conditions.

Also, you haven't adressed my issue about our ancestors.im sorry but all u have shown is your ignorance of evolution.. (ignorance isnt a "bad word".. it just merely explains why u mock and dont understand the importance of genomic data).

an order isnt "assumed".. if u had knowledge of genetics and the details of how dna works (in particular mitochondrial dna), u would know this.

there are certain things one looks for when analyzing dna.. there are certain markers that explicitly show order and relation.

we didnt come from pigs simply because we are primates so we had to directly descend from a primate.

but inadvertently u are calmost on track in a way because what we call pigs are an off shoot on the evolutionary tree that developed around the same time as the appearance of primates... humans are cousins of pigs.. we are cousins of all the quadrepeds. we are cousins of monkeys.. its just that we are more "removed" cousins to pigs than we are to monkeys.

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 08:54 PM
I see what you are saying. But my point is this. We are all related in the sense that we are all inhabitants of this planet. So it doesn't surprise me that we share dna anymore than it surprises me that we breath oxygen. I don't see how DNA's being in some way similar means that I came from a monkey like creature?then u are downplaying the importance of dna on this planet and what dna actually does and mean to life

the beauty of it is that creatures that dont even breath oxygen are still indeed RELATED to us.. but yet not even SIMILAR to us!

so thus, the argument of similarity goes out the window!

humans are related to marijuana! yes i said it..

we are related to cannibus.. the reason is that cannibus and homo sapiens share the same common ancestor the lead to the evolutoin on flowering plants and also the evolution of terrestrial animals.. that ancestor (our biological great grandaddy) was a little organism called cyano bacteria!

cd
10-24-2005, 08:59 PM
Any theory that suggests I'm similar to any animal or plant, or any race I find annoying is obviously flawed and completey made up. The fact that you are trying to say that some of us are not God's special creatures, made in his physical image and we are seperate and more evolved than others, shows you are just jealous Timbs and grasping for straws. So go play pretend with your "evolution"...Monkeys and great apes....yea right.

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 09:02 PM
I could probably show coke is made up on molecular level very similarly to water. Doesn't mean they are the same.


i garuntee u wouldnt be able to show that!..

because on a molecular level, water (2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen) and coke (from the la cochiana plant) contains dna strands along with rna motiffs. there is no comparison or frame of reference upon which to even assume lineage.

similarly, u couldnt simply look at electrons and protons on an atomic level, because electrons and protons dont contain encoded data! thats the key.. dna contains encoded data for inheritance.. so it simply cant be refuted... its a losing battle

My First Timbs
10-24-2005, 09:03 PM
Any theory that suggests I'm similar to any animal or plant, or any race I find annoying is obviously flawed and completey made up. The fact that you are trying to say that some of us are not God's special creatures, made in his physical image and we are seperate and more evolved than others, shows you are just jealous Timbs and grasping for straws. So go play pretend with your "evolution"...Monkeys and great apes....yea right.
ahahahahahaha waddup boy !

baby jesus
10-24-2005, 09:56 PM
Man I'm Suprised There's So Many People Who Dont Believe In Evolution. Yo I Heard Something Like Are Apendix Use To Probably Be An Organ We Used And Was Alot Bigger Wouldnt That Be Consider Evolution?

THE W
10-24-2005, 10:35 PM
the Creator in the beginning made all types of birds, all types of monkeys, all types of fish, all types of insects, and all types of various beasts. all have have similar traits like breathing oxygen, they eat, have similar internal organs, etc. so naturally they will have some similar DNA, some more similar than others. but the monkey, the bird, the fish, the insect, and the various beasts are not related to each other in that one did not come from the other. they were all independently created but share some similar functions.

only problem is the Creator made one man and one women. since the women was made from the man they had to have been of similar ethnicity. so how are there different races of people in the world? to my knowledge the bible does not account for this.

SubtleEnergies
10-25-2005, 07:05 AM
Ok granted I accept that we are related. This still doesn't show that we evolved from each other or who evolved from who.

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 12:46 PM
Man I'm Suprised There's So Many People Who Dont Believe In Evolution. Yo I Heard Something Like Are Apendix Use To Probably Be An Organ We Used And Was Alot Bigger Wouldnt That Be Consider Evolution?
exactly.. the human appendix is an example of a vestigial appendage/organ.. just like a human being born with a tail appendage.. we are all still born with the appendix organ that serves no function in modern man.. but yet, our genetics still contains the encoded data to produce this organ.. even tho its function is extinct !

thousands of years from now, we can "assume" that modern man will no longer produce this organ! it will only sporadically appear as a birth defect and then a new group of ppl will debate over the appendix like we are debating over the human tail!

THE W
10-25-2005, 12:59 PM
so what was the former use of the appendix?

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 01:28 PM
the Creator in the beginning made all types of birds, all types of monkeys, all types of fish, all types of insects, and all types of various beasts. all have have similar traits like breathing oxygen, they eat, have similar internal organs, etc. so naturally they will have some similar DNA, some more similar than others. but the monkey, the bird, the fish, the insect, and the various beasts are not related to each other in that one did not come from the other. they were all independently created but share some similar functions.

only problem is the Creator made one man and one women. since the women was made from the man they had to have been of similar ethnicity. so how are there different races of people in the world? to my knowledge the bible does not account for this.
There are many problems with this.. if a god allegedly made all of the creatures fully formed, they would have no reason to change or improve or evolve from their original perfect "god given" form.. yet we know that creatures do change and improve on their original perfect god crafted design.. this is known as the religious flaw of "immutability" ie anything that a god creates will share in his perfection. And thus has no need to change or improve. etc etc





another problem with creation by a god as explained in genesis is the order! In the bible its explained that plants were created before the creation of insects (which is evolutionarily impossible) there are carloads of logical problems with it.. not just that one.. for more.. purchase acalltosanity and read ch 2. ..hehehe… jus playin. but seriously.. no matter how u reconcile it.. the genesis creationmyth just doesnt cut it.. it creates more problems that can only be solved with "divine power"





more importantly is that we humans are allegedly made in the image of god, but yet we share 98% of our genetic code with a chimpanzee.. this would force us to conclude that god must be atleast 98% chimpanzee as well.





about the race issue stemming from adam and eve.. that’s not the biggest and only problem this story has..more importantly than races, a poplulation of a species resulting from only 2 progenitors is bound to die after about 4 generations due to what is known in genetics as "recessive lethal inheritance traits".. u cant start a population with 2 progenitors and expect it to bottleneck into a worldwide population. If u only have 2 individuals, u have no way to maximize diversity of the genetic pool.. (diversity is one with evolution), a stagnant gene pool is as good as dead.

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 02:43 PM
so what was the former use of the appendix?
its simple.. the appendix (the human appendix) is a left over rudimentary and primitive organ that is supposed to be attached to the cecum and aid in the digestion of harsh plant material.

but humans are no longer herbivores and dont digest harsh plant material (we havent been herbivores for a very long time), thus the appendix is worthless and lost its functioning...

just like animals who live in caves eventually lose the need to even produce eyes but still have eyelids.. its a leftover.. think of it as an evolutionary "throwback"!

another evolutionary throwback which we possess and still develop are wisdom teeth.

THE W
10-25-2005, 03:41 PM
There are many problems with this.. if a god allegedly made all of the creatures fully formed, they would have no reason to change or improve or evolve from their original perfect "god given" form.. yet we know that creatures do change and improve on their original perfect god crafted design.. this is known as the religious flaw of "immutability" ie anything that a god creates will share in his perfection. And thus has no need to change or improve. etc etcagain this only shows that things change due to the environment they are in. it does not show that one comes from another. maybe one of the great attributes that "god" gave us is that we can adapt to our environment.




another problem with creation by a god as explained in genesis is the order! In the bible its explained that plants were created before the creation of insects (which is evolutionarily impossible) there are carloads of logical problems with it.. not just that one.. for more.. purchase acalltosanity and read ch 2. ..hehehe… jus playin. but seriously.. no matter how u reconcile it.. the genesis creationmyth just doesnt cut it.. it creates more problems that can only be solved with "divine power"why is it impossible for the plant to come before the animal? spare a poor man who doesnt like reading books your knowledge.





more importantly is that we humans are allegedly made in the image of god, but yet we share 98% of our genetic code with a chimpanzee.. this would force us to conclude that god must be atleast 98% chimpanzee as well.i dont doubt it since monkeys looks a lot like humans. if you've ever seen a real ugly muthafucka they look like a monkey. yet and still we're not monkey's, we're humans. we dont know if "god" has a DNA code at all. again you've shown similarity but no relation.

i would say "god" is 100% human.




about the race issue stemming from adam and eve.. that’s not the biggest and only problem this story has..more importantly than races, a poplulation of a species resulting from only 2 progenitors is bound to die after about 4 generations due to what is known in genetics as "recessive lethal inheritance traits".. u cant start a population with 2 progenitors and expect it to bottleneck into a worldwide population. If u only have 2 individuals, u have no way to maximize diversity of the genetic pool.. (diversity is one with evolution), a stagnant gene pool is as good as dead. now here's where the "divine power" comes in. when adam and eve were reproducing and the children they had were marrying each other(eww :r) "god" made it so that this could happen without jeopordizing the life and health of the people incest breeding. when you get to leviticus or duetoronomy(dont remember which) and the population was numerous enough, "god" made rules for his people who followed him not to be sleeping around with immediate family members and first cousins. anyone who did that would end up suffereing what you have idnetified as "recessive lethal inheretance traits" as punishment for disobeying "god".

but you still have the issue of how the different races came about from just two 2 people.

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 04:42 PM
again this only shows that things change due to the environment they are in. it does not show that one comes from another. maybe one of the great attributes that "god" gave us is that we can adapt to our environment.


im really not sure what else would convince u that genetic similarity = relation. how else could i explain it.. please let me know where i am going wrong and what exactly i could do to explain it better.. :)

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 04:57 PM
why is it impossible for the plant to come before the animal? spare a poor man who doesnt like reading books your knowledge.


its not impossible for plants to come b4 animals... in fact thats sort of what happened in reality.. im talking about the creation myth stating that plants came before "animals that take flight" and that would include the flying insects... thats impossible ! the flying insect evolved along with the flowering plant (they are in essence a symbiotic relation).. its just a little technicality that the creation myth doesnt take into account. so u cant have a story that says the plants (that included flowering plants) existed before the creation of animals and creatures that take flight.

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 04:59 PM
i dont doubt it since monkeys looks a lot like humans. if you've ever seen a real ugly muthafucka they look like a monkey. yet and still we're not monkey's, we're humans. we dont know if "god" has a DNA code at all. again you've shown similarity but no relation.

i would say "god" is 100% human.


looks dont tell the story! forget looks.. im talking about genetic identity.. if god created us in his image (that would include our genetic code as well).. and it just so happens that we are 98% gorilla, then by logic that would mean that god is atleast 98% gorilla or greater.. he cant be 100% human because to be 100% human means to be 98% gorilla.. thats all i was pointing out.

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 05:01 PM
now here's where the "divine power" comes in. when adam and eve were reproducing and the children they had were marrying each other(eww :r) "god" made it so that this could happen without jeopordizing the life and health of the people incest breeding. when you get to leviticus or duetoronomy(dont remember which) and the population was numerous enough, "god" made rules for his people who followed him not to be sleeping around with immediate family members and first cousins. anyone who did that would end up suffereing what you have idnetified as "recessive lethal inheretance traits" as punishment for disobeying "god".


well i guess anything will always be possible if one believes in a god with magical divine powers that can trump the rules of the world.. thats why science and the concept of an all powerful creator will never truly reconcile.. because the believer of the all powerful always has a scape goat.. the divine power of their deity.. while the rationalist is forced to abide by natural laws.

My First Timbs
10-25-2005, 05:02 PM
but you still have the issue of how the different races came about from just two 2 people.

yea.. and its a biological impossibility to develop different races of people from a 2 person population.. u need multiple populations evolving at the same time in order to produce the genetic variance needed for "race"

but here comes the scape goat... god has divine powers so, that means some how.. some way.. he did it..

cd
10-25-2005, 05:25 PM
ahahahahahaha waddup boy !

What's up Timbs? Just enjoying the beautiful weather..lol

SubtleEnergies
10-25-2005, 06:58 PM
What about Stephen Oppenheimer's claim in his new book Out of Eden.

It's shown through your precious DNA that all people outside of Africa left Africa in one mass exodus and ALL share a common male and female ancestor.

SubtleEnergies
10-25-2005, 07:02 PM
Our appendix has shrunk. That doesn't mean we have evolved into a new species lol. I can change the size of an organ in the next few years through certain activities if I choose. This doesn't prove I came from a monkey.

This does however prove my long standing point that humans didn't always eat meat.

SubtleEnergies
10-25-2005, 07:05 PM
Also, I thought I posted this but I can't find it.

Aren't our formerly thought of "ancesstorS" the homo erectus etc all the way back now thought by science to actually be our cousins not our ancestors? That we didn't evolve from them but were merely very similar.

And also that these "ancestors" in some cases were no different to certain existing modern races, and that there is less difference between them and modern humans than an equatorial African and a caucasian today?

Also, Timbs do you believe some people now are more evolved than others?

My First Timbs
10-26-2005, 12:08 PM
What about Stephen Oppenheimer's claim in his new book Out of Eden.

It's shown through your precious DNA that all people outside of Africa left Africa in one mass exodus and ALL share a common male and female ancestor.
once again.. folks.. this is what im talking about... ppl misunderstand scientific theories and misunderstand evolution

of course all of humanity can be traced back to a male and female ancestor... HOWEVER.. this is no way means that there were originally only 2 people on the planet!!

there is a big difference!..... picture a population of 1000 people in africa... they are thriving....multiplying etc etc... then... they split off into different smaller communites (but all the while still retaining the diverse dna of a larger group) .. this is what is known as genetic diversity... then the smaller groups go their separate ways until eventually u have a man and woman (im simplifying it. but keep in mind its more complex than this)... this man and woman end up having children who go on to populate other areas of the globe.....

this is what he is talking about! he isnt talking about a population starting from 2 ppl .. he is talking about a larger population giving rise thru geographic and behavioral isolation to a woman and man whom we all have in common!

this is a tremendous difference !

My First Timbs
10-26-2005, 12:10 PM
Our appendix has shrunk. That doesn't mean we have evolved into a new species lol. I can change the size of an organ in the next few years through certain activities if I choose. This doesn't prove I came from a monkey.

This does however prove my long standing point that humans didn't always eat meat.

1) i never said we are a new species because our appendix shrunk.. dont go start throwing out red herrings

2) u are incorrect that humans didnt always eat meat! modern humans have always ate meat.. its our primate ancestors who were herbivores!.. so no!... recognize that we always ate meat

My First Timbs
10-26-2005, 12:15 PM
them and modern humans than an equatorial African and a caucasian today?

Also, Timbs do you believe some people now are more evolved than others?
no.. but more importantly it depends on what u mean when u say "more evolved"

u have to stop looking at evolution as a race for progress.. evolution does no simply a step "forward" toward complexity.. it simply implies change and difference..

people cant evolve.. only whole populations can "evolve"

so no, there are not some people who are "more evolved" than others simply because the statement doesnt make evolutionary sense ("more evolved")

is the human "more evolved" than the baboon?

we are not! we are simply evolutionarily different than the baboon.

u cant quantify it and plave humanoid subjective perception upon the word "more"

WARPATH
10-26-2005, 02:07 PM
well i guess anything will always be possible if one believes in a god with magical divine powers that can trump the rules of the world.. thats why science and the concept of an all powerful creator will never truly reconcile.. because the believer of the all powerful always has a scape goat.. the divine power of their deity.. while the rationalist is forced to abide by natural laws.not entirely true...............

I had the oppurtunity to travel to the acrtic circle with a group of 7 Nasa scientists-I was visiting with a Nasa scientist who tried to convince me that- Shamans are controlled by the devil- Angels and Demons veiw us on a dimensional plane with tools smimlar to what use- here's his example

you can view a recording on television and watch over something- play- rewind- fast forward- his therory is that "Angels" watch over us from another dimension with a tool like a telvision- he explained this by saying "we can see what's happening on the t.v. but the people in the t.v can't see us--------------
ON the angels t.v. they can directley effect what goes on in the movie there watching- Demons can also do this- he claims that when they see someone with their legs crossed, meditating, they become fair game- because theire mind acts as an antannae- calling out to the demons who in turn manipulate their minds

He go's by Nasa Mike- he's convinced that through science he can come closer to God Almighty- here's a link to his website

http://www.nasamike.com/

WARPATH
10-26-2005, 02:25 PM
our ancestors evolved from creatures that we would today classify as a monkey. i quadrepedal primate with increased hand, foot and brain size that lives in close knit social groups.

from the quadrepeds sprang forth the bipedal primates (our closest ancestor) walking upright gave a tremendous benefit to lifestyle.

so in a nutshell, yes we come from monkeys, but none of the monkeys u see alive today.. our closest relatives are not monkeys to this day.. our closest ancestors alive today would be any of the apes and great apes... but remember, we didnt come from the great apes! we came from an extinct bipedal primate that lead to the evolution of us and teh great apes.. think of the great apes alive today as distant cousins.. we didnt come from them and they didnt come from us, but we share the same exact lineage!

the genetics involved proves this.

people always say "how could we come from monkeys if monkeys are still around".. thats nonsense.. evolution deals with splits, splinters and off shoots of the main family lineage or tree!

all living creatures on this planet are related (distant cousins of eachother).. we all come from the same "stuff" and share one ancestor in common.. (that ancestor being whatever was the 1st living cell on ths planet)..

this is why the genetic code of yeast issimilar to thegenetic code of a human.. why? because we are related... we are distant cousins of yeast !

the human genetic code is 40% identical to the genetic code of an apple.. why? because apples and humans share a common ancestor! that ancestor being whatever the first organism was that lead to the off shoot from plant to animal! (most likely a form of algae)!


the theory of humans evolving from bi- pedal primates is dis-proved with the evidence you presented here

gentics-

act as ingridients for everything

if my gentic make-up is 40% identical to an apple than perhaps I evolved from an apple-

then if my genetic code us smilar to yeast then perhaps I evolved from yeast too-

then how did I evolve from a monkey also?

Humans the same gentic make up of almost everything- I have eyes like an like a fish, I have hair like a bear, I have teeth like a cow- I have all the ingriedents that make up almost everything else, then how can I be pin pointed to evolving from one thing?

Yes we are all related- that much is true but it doesn't nesscarily mean everything stemmed from a one cell organism-

100pr00f
10-26-2005, 02:39 PM
then how did I evolve from a monkey also?

it is a proven fact........lol

as the monkey evolevd to the other stages more artifacts were found such as tools weapons
....
writtings on cave walls
....
as climents change on earth we will evolve....

example............................

if ice age rolls arounded for the 2nd comming.........and humans are still alive after some odd years ..they will evolve in to take the cold weather...in such as growing more hair

witch brings me to the next thing

this monkey was full of hair
as it ,,,,, was colder back in those days couse no globle wormming
plus tha last ice age
as things begain to heat up the evolutiong of the monkey became the next step as n less hair


also with them creating fire got them thinking witch gave em bigger brains ...then created tools............

i mean i dont have to go over it all as u suppose to know it all ready..as it was tought in school



belive it or not we are still evolving.............u see peeps living till 110
when 110 years has past from now i belive they will raise the avg age og living to 100 years of age


thats if we make it that long.......as we are in for a ice age some time in next years to come

WARPATH
10-26-2005, 03:12 PM
then how did I evolve from a monkey also?

it is a proven fact........lol

as the monkey evolevd to the other stages more artifacts were found such as tools weapons
....
writtings on cave walls
....
as climents change on earth we will evolve....

example............................

if ice age rolls arounded for the 2nd comming.........and humans are still alive after some odd years ..they will evolve in to take the cold weather...in such as growing more hair

witch brings me to the next thing

this monkey was full of hair
as it ,,,,, was colder back in those days couse no globle wormming
plus tha last ice age
as things begain to heat up the evolutiong of the monkey became the next step as n less hair


also with them creating fire got them thinking witch gave em bigger brains ...then created tools............

i mean i dont have to go over it all as u suppose to know it all ready..as it was tought in school



belive it or not we are still evolving.............u see peeps living till 110
when 110 years has past from now i belive they will raise the avg age og living to 100 years of age


thats if we make it that long.......as we are in for a ice age some time in next years to come
the reason people live longer now is due to the fact of the advance's in modern medicine and better living conditions

if you go somwhere where living conditions, are worse, example lack of clean water- the live expectacy rate is much lower-

there isn't any evidence or "artifacts" fossils, bones, that link man with monkeys
no evidence what so ever- prove it i'd really like to see it

honestley do you beleive everything they cram down your throat in school? if you do I really pity you

My First Timbs
10-26-2005, 04:24 PM
the theory of humans evolving from bi- pedal primates is dis-proved with the evidence you presented here

gentics-

act as ingridients for everything

if my gentic make-up is 40% identical to an apple than perhaps I evolved from an apple-

then if my genetic code us smilar to yeast then perhaps I evolved from yeast too-

then how did I evolve from a monkey also?

Humans the same gentic make up of almost everything- I have eyes like an like a fish, I have hair like a bear, I have teeth like a cow- I have all the ingriedents that make up almost everything else, then how can I be pin pointed to evolving from one thing?

Yes we are all related- that much is true but it doesn't nesscarily mean everything stemmed from a one cell organism-
again.. u are misunderstanding what i am saying..

the genetic similarity between us and apples and yeast does not mean that we come from yeast or apples.. all it simply means is that we are related by way of a common ancestor many million years ago.. our most recent common ancestor however is a bipedal primate.

i dont see why this is hard to fathom.

My First Timbs
10-26-2005, 04:25 PM
evolution has nothing to due with increase in life span.

peace :)

WARPATH
10-26-2005, 04:44 PM
again.. u are misunderstanding what i am saying..

the genetic similarity between us and apples and yeast does not mean that we come from yeast or apples.. all it simply means is that we are related by way of a common ancestor many million years ago.. our most recent common ancestor however is a bipedal primate.

i dont see why this is hard to fathom.
then you misunderstood my point-

genetic similarity between humans and apples does not mean we evolved from an apple- it just means that all living things are made from the same ingriedients-just mixed in a different order- I agree with the fact that we are all related- but is it to hard to fathom that we were created by something greater then us? Like a Celestial Chef mixing things up to a taste he likes? The theroy that everything came from a single cell and kept growing and changing is a neat theroy, but it's just that a theroy- it hasn't been proven and can't be proven- just like it's impossible to back up the creation therory without having any hard scientific data-
So just like that it's a mystery- the one great mystery- we aren't meant to have the answeres for


like i siad there's no linking fossils or skeltons that relate us to bipedal primates- nothing that shows an "inbetween stage" of evoulution- there's no hard evidence that show native americans crossed the land bridge to be in north and south america- and the whole climate change thing effects skin color- if that were true then wouldn't the indians closer to the eqator resemble black people? hmm....
evolution in that sense is bullshit- basing everything of genetic mutations- if you have child with born with an extra arm and he mates with normal girl what are the chances of their child being born with an extra arm- I know evolution doesn't work quite like that and take millions of years but just think about it

100pr00f
10-26-2005, 05:30 PM
How Evolution Works

Mutations are accidents in reproduction. The only place where such mutations can occur is in the production of the haploid cells (cells with a single set of chromosomes) in the sperm and egg, or in the joining of the two in conception. A reproduction accident anywhere else in the body will affect only the cell that suffers the accident. Such accidents will not be added into the gene pool and thus are not mutations. In such an accident, the sick cell is quickly replaced by a well one and the incident is over. Yet when such an accident occurs in the sperm or egg, it will appear in every cell in the offspring. This mutation then has a 50% chance of occurring in each grandchild. If the recipient of the mutation has several children, the odds are that the mutation will join the species gene pool by way of one or more of his children.

Natural selection then determines the fate of the mutation in the species gene pool. The test is not survivability or excellence. The test is in species population growth. If the mutation aids the growth of the species population then it is successful and will remain in the gene pool. If it does not, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool (through death and hardship).

Here are a few examples concerning man and evolution to help gain understanding of the way evolution works. The effects shown are not necessarily caused by genetics, but evolution treats all conditions as if they were. Note that natural selection acts as if all genes are involved in the success or failure of the individual. Each case that reduces the expected offspring is considered a vote against each gene in the genome. Each case that equals or exceeds the expected offspring is considered a vote for each gene in the genome. The mixing of genes in recombination allow individual allele selection over the long period of time.

Effect1: The new gene shortens the life to 35 years. Natural selection would not see this defect as detrimental since the children will be old enough to fend for themselves by that time.

Effect2: The parent has too many children. If so many children were born that the resulting death or misery rate reduced the number of the children who had children, evolution would see this as detrimental. If society takes care of his children for him they will be healthy enough to raise more children and evolution would judge the condition as beneficial

Effect3: The parent does not take good care of his children. If society does not interfere by taking care of the children for him, the suffering children are less likely to raise children of their own and evolution would judge that the condition is detrimental. If society cares for his children, evolution will judge the condition beneficial.

Effect4: The new gene lengthens life to 150 years. Evolution will not see this change as beneficial. Neither will it see later mutations that degrade it as detrimental, until the life expectancy gets so low that it affects child bearing and raising.

Effect5: The man is a murderer of children. His murder of someone else's children will affect the evaluation of the genes of their parents adversely. If the murderer has sufficient children of his own, evolution will not see anything detrimental in his lineage.

Effect6: The man is cruel and vicious with his wife. As long as he does not kill her or otherwise render her unable to care for her children, evolution will see no harm. Even if he kills her and society takes over the raising of his children, evolution will still see no harm

Effect7: The man dies of an accident before he has children. Natural selection will see this death as detrimental

Effect8: A young lady decides not to marry and have children. Natural selection will see this as detrimental.

Effect9: A man decides to adopt children instead of having his own. Natural selection will vote for the genes of the natural parents of the children and vote against the adoptive parent's gene set.

A great difference clearly exists between the goals of evolution and those of a compassionate culture. We are built one way, but we want to be another way. Luckily there is a large overlap where both evolution and man desire the same thing. Unfortunately, where we differ the choices are all quite painful

.................................................. .................................................. .........................................

What Is Human Evolution?

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/images/jtimages/varioushominidimages/turkanaboy.jpg Human evolution is the theory which states that humans developed from primates (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/terms.html), or ape-like, ancestors. In 1856, a strange skull was found by some workmen in the Neander Valley in Germany. The odd appearance of the skull led some to believe that it had once belonged to a person who was afflicted with rickets. They did not believe it could have come from an ancestor of modern man. It did, however, form the notion that there could have been creatures that were half-human and half-ape. Ernst Heinrich, a German scientist, claimed that if such a creature were ever found it should be named Pithecanthropus erectus, which means upright apeman.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/images/jtimages/boiseiskull.jpg Even before the discovery of the skull, which is now known as Homo neanderthalensis, people hypothesized that there was some sort of transmutation (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/terms.html) took place between species. This, however, was not widely accepted. On November 4, 1859, the view on evolution as a whole changed dramatically. This was the date that Charles Darwin (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/darwin_charles.html) published his work The Origin of Species. With the release of this work, the theory of human evolution became a bit more believable. The theory of natural selection (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/terms.html) was proposed by Darwin within The Origin of Species. This theory states that the physical traits of an organism are selected for according to the environment it lives in.

Darwin's theory peaked the interest of many scientists who went out in search of skulls which would branch the gap between apes and humans. In 1890, a Dutch physician by the name of Eugene Dubois (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/dubois_eugene.html) found a low, apelike skull on the banks of a river in Java. Dubois also discovered a humanlike thigh bone near the skull. He concluded that this creature was the link between apes and humans which Heinrich hypothesized about. Other fossils began to be found which appeared to be transitional.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/images/taung.jpg In 1925, Raymond Dart (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/dart_raymond.html) found a skull which was the first to be classified as Australopithecus (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/terms.html). The skull looked apelike in appearance, but had humanlike teeth. Dart discovered the skull in a box of fossilized bones sent to him from Tuang. Mary (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/leakey_mary.html) and Louis Leakey (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/leakey_louis.html) also found a number of Australopithecine fossils. The Leakey's main area of focus was the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. Another researcher, Donald Johanson (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/johanson_donald.html), found similar fossils in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Johanson is credited with finding the fossil skeleton of "Lucy", an Australopithecus afarensis, which shows that ancestors of humans were walking upright at around 3.6 million years ago.

As the amount of finds increased, so did the number of species. Today, the Australopithecus genus includes:


A. anemensis
A. afarensis
A. africanus
A. boisei
A. robustus
A. aethiopicus
(A. is an abbreviation for Australopithecus)

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/images/jtimages/habilis.jpg Even though these fossils had both human and ape characteristics, the apelike qualities outnumbered the human ones. Scientists sought to find fossils that were closer to modern man than the Australopithecines. In the early 1960's, Louis Leakey found what he thought was another A. boisei skull, however, the brain case was larger than previous finds. After collaboration with P.V. Tobias and J.R. Napier, he named the skull Homo (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/terms.html) habilis, which means "handy man". He came up with this name because of the tools found at the site of the skull. Leakey figured that the enlarged brain size made it possible for H. habilis to form tools according to how his/her mind perceived it should look like. Other species of this genus that were found include H. erectus, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, and our own species, H. sapiens sapiens.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/images/sapiensapien.jpgSome controversy concerning the labeling of H. sapiens neanderthalensis has arisen in past years, as to whether it should be considered part of the sapiens line. Previously, Neanderthals were considered to have been the transitory form from H. erectus to H. sapiens sapiens. The ideology then shifted to a position that Neanderthals were not a transitory form, but were instead a genetic dead end. Their abrupt disappearance in the fossil record has yielded suggestions that Neanderthals were outcompeted and replaced by anatomically modern human beings. The current viewpoint among many people is that Neanderthals were in fact a separate species and have been labeled by some as H. neanderthalensis, dropping "sapiens" from the name.

100pr00f
10-26-2005, 05:34 PM
thier is proof linking skulls to us and aps..................as it shows


u see ape skull
u see human and ape characteristics in the next skull
and so on...as u look u can see how it is...how evolution worked
as the evirment changes

WARPATH
10-26-2005, 06:25 PM
thier is proof linking skulls to us and aps..................as it shows


u see ape skull
u see human and ape characteristics in the next skull
and so on...as u look u can see how it is...how evolution worked
as the evirment changesi need to see pictures- post them- showing them all in order-

guaranteed you won't find a picture that show skull that is between a man's and a monkeys

these skull you showed are of a different species other then human but do not prove that humans evloved from them- when I see those skulls I see different species- I don't see the human part of it-

you could post a skull of rat, then a skull of dog, the skull of a lion- and say- the rat evolved into the lion

WARPATH
10-26-2005, 06:43 PM
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b81/slippydapimp/maned-rat-skull-md.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b81/slippydapimp/bush-dog-skull-md.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b81/slippydapimp/BC72-lg.jpg

100pr00f
10-26-2005, 10:37 PM
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/images/taung.jpg
here is one...it is a skull of a mix ....
its when we started to walk upright

100pr00f
10-26-2005, 10:44 PM
http://www.chineseprehistory.org/clipart/crania/small/zkdrec1s.jpg (http://www.chineseprehistory.org/clipart/crania/zkdrecon.jpg) This composite reconstruction of the skull of "Peking Man" has come to epitomize H. erectus as a distinct human species. In actual fact the reconstruction, done by Weidenreich and his associates, represents a female. Many features of the Zhoukoudian crania, such as their "beetle-brows," and various crests and ridges on the surface bone of the skull tend to differentiate the "Peking Man" material from other contemporaneous humans. These seem to be localized rather than species defining features

WARPATH
10-27-2005, 10:44 AM
WOW! you convinced me

My First Timbs
10-27-2005, 03:44 PM
then you misunderstood my point-

genetic similarity between humans and apples does not mean we evolved from an apple- it just means that all living things are made from the same ingriedients-just mixed in a different order- I agree with the fact that we are all related- but is it to hard to fathom that we were created by something greater then us? Like a Celestial Chef mixing things up to a taste he likes? The theroy that everything came from a single cell and kept growing and changing is a neat theroy, but it's just that a theroy- it hasn't been proven and can't be proven- just like it's impossible to back up the creation therory without having any hard scientific data-
So just like that it's a mystery- the one great mystery- we aren't meant to have the answeres for


like i siad there's no linking fossils or skeltons that relate us to bipedal primates- nothing that shows an "inbetween stage" of evoulution- there's no hard evidence that show native americans crossed the land bridge to be in north and south america- and the whole climate change thing effects skin color- if that were true then wouldn't the indians closer to the eqator resemble black people? hmm....
evolution in that sense is bullshit- basing everything of genetic mutations- if you have child with born with an extra arm and he mates with normal girl what are the chances of their child being born with an extra arm- I know evolution doesn't work quite like that and take millions of years but just think about it
u are misunderstanding evolution adn over simplifying it tremendously.. thats why it isnt sitting well with u

My First Timbs
10-27-2005, 03:59 PM
. so imagine u are born with a genetic mutation that causes your red blood cells to have a slightly different shape than normal red blood cells.. by chance, this mutataion is inheritable in your children.... your children then are born with this mutation... as an unexpected benefit, this mutation makesyour children immune to Malaria... this advantageous random mutation now has extreme survival value if you live in a Malaria rich environment... if u do, your offspring will inevitably (if everything goes right) have offspring that have a slight advantage over other humans who dont have this evolutionary advantage.. the end result is a population of homo sapiens that are immune to Malaria.. all due to a chance occurence of a genetic mutation.

Malcom Guevera
10-27-2005, 09:59 PM
Man on this planet has become what he has become because of a loss of intelligence. What you have is a beast within the body of an intelligent life form.

SubtleEnergies
10-28-2005, 08:17 AM
Mutations aren't inherited. I am not a gambler. LOL "by chance.."

My First Timbs
10-28-2005, 10:45 AM
Mutations aren't inherited. I am not a gambler. LOL "by chance.."
on what planet do u live?

mutations are inherited all the time..what make su think they are not inheritable?

and yes.. chance and probability has a strong role in most of biology..

i have no why idea why ppl cant accept this. everything isnt planned out.. many things occur and are the way they are simply because of the role of the dice...

humans are here simply because a random chance event that wiped out the dinosaurs

WARPATH
10-28-2005, 12:08 PM
on what planet do u live?

mutations are inherited all the time..what make su think they are not inheritable?

and yes.. chance and probability has a strong role in most of biology..

i have no why idea why ppl cant accept this. everything isnt planned out.. many things occur and are the way they are simply because of the role of the dice...

humans are here simply because a random chance event that wiped out the dinosaurs


People can't except evolution because the theory goes against it's self- if everything was the roll of the dice things would be more chaotic- if humans have been slowly evolving from primates then why are we the only creatures that evolved to have large brains cabable of choice? An animal can only run on instinct, while humans can choose what they want to do with their lives. A human can choose to only eat vegatables or make their diet of only meat, while animals have to go off of insticts- the instict hunt, or be a scavanger- the instinct to mate- A human can choose to go through life with out mating- we can choose not to eat and fast- why are we the only creatures that don't have to adhere to the instincts of the wild? The gift of a mind to make choices and choose what to do with our bodies and life is what makes us different from everything else that "evolved" i'm not saying evoultion didn't happen- it just didn't happen to humans

100pr00f
10-28-2005, 12:28 PM
animals can choose what to eat and what not lol...if they dont want zebra that day they dont have to eat it

if they dont wont to mate they dont have to
the reason they do is becouse most animales roll in packs..they learn from thier parents on how to live ..so they live just like thier parents


what do think happen........mmmm
lets see what u see..hear....


god was board one day so ...lets make a human....(plop) thier is one (plop) thier is 2 let them mate and creat more....

lol

it started out as orginzems
and evolved to somthing els...and so on...we just go the better half...by saying that i mean we didnt evole into a dog or some thing

My First Timbs
10-28-2005, 12:35 PM
u misunderstand evolution so badly that it appears to go against itself to u.

u basically just have alot of questions, but the answers are all explicitly out there.

ur questions such as " why are we the only ones to evolve large brains etc etc" are so juvenile that one who understands how selection works and how biological niches are filled would not even consider asking.

im not trying to be disrespectful, but all of your questions are satisfactorily answered within the theory.

it would be like someone who isnt really understanding of algebra asking questions about it and then prematurely coming to a conclusion that algebra is a discipline that goes against itself.... thats what u are doing.

instead of jumping to a conclusion, u should simply just ask if you are not sure exactly how evolution works, or ask if u arent sure about chaos/random chance/entropy/ laws of thermodynamics and how they are not at odds with biological evolution.

for some reason ppl think that evolution is a "theory in crisis", when this is so far from the truth.. it is in no more crisis than the theory of gravity.

My First Timbs
10-28-2005, 02:03 PM
the answer is a loud and firm YES !



its all evolution. see this is what needs to be understood. Evolution is alot more complex tht it is made out to be. There are several different types of evolution and the one main type that is normally argued about is what is known as "macro evolution".

Macro evolution as the name suggests involves a change in the populations gene pool that results in one species over time being modified by cumulative changes resulting in a totally different species (one must have a firm definition of the word "species" in order for this to "gel").

the other type of evolution is what is known as "micro evolution". micro evolution (as the name would suggest) occurs on a smaller scale and manifests itslef as a change in the populations gene pool that results in a change in form, function or ability within the species . An example of this would be birds having different beak sizes depending on the type of seeds they need to eat, but all the while still being finches.. one achetype of finch led to the microevolution of several varieties with different beak sizes based on adapting to the environment... but note.. this change occured because there had to be a change in the genetics ie a genetic mutation! u cant have evolution without having a change in the genetics

thats all evolution is,.. its defined as a change in the genes divided by time (normally plotted on an x and y axis with time on the y)

so if u have one bird born with a mutated beak by chance, this isnt evolution unless this change results in a change in the genetics of a whole population! individuals dont evolve.. only populations.

now more importantly.. its always said how "things change to suit their environment", however the bioogical/ evolutionary defination of the word "environment" could be anything.. thats why evolutionists truly dont use that word like that.. its more accurate to say that creatures evolve based on environmental stressors.. these stressors could be physical or non physical.. not simply implying location.

SubtleEnergies
10-28-2005, 05:58 PM
The experiments done on mutations of DNA make me think that...but hey...don't let science get in the way of what you want to believe.

WARPATH
10-29-2005, 07:14 PM
u misunderstand evolution so badly that it appears to go against itself to u.

u basically just have alot of questions, but the answers are all explicitly out there.

ur questions such as " why are we the only ones to evolve large brains etc etc" are so juvenile that one who understands how selection works and how biological niches are filled would not even consider asking.

im not trying to be disrespectful, but all of your questions are satisfactorily answered within the theory.

it would be like someone who isnt really understanding of algebra asking questions about it and then prematurely coming to a conclusion that algebra is a discipline that goes against itself.... thats what u are doing.

instead of jumping to a conclusion, u should simply just ask if you are not sure exactly how evolution works, or ask if u arent sure about chaos/random chance/entropy/ laws of thermodynamics and how they are not at odds with biological evolution.

for some reason ppl think that evolution is a "theory in crisis", when this is so far from the truth.. it is in no more crisis than the theory of gravity.


You didn't answer my questions though- you just played it off like i'm stupid or that I can't comprehend what the theory is about- If my questions are so Juvenile why didn't you just break it down for me?


why is it humans are the only ones capable of rational thought? Why are we the only things not bound to instincts?

WARPATH
10-29-2005, 07:25 PM
animals can choose what to eat and what not lol...if they dont want zebra that day they dont have to eat it

if they dont wont to mate they dont have to
the reason they do is becouse most animales roll in packs..they learn from thier parents on how to live ..so they live just like thier parents


what do think happen........mmmm
lets see what u see..hear....


god was board one day so ...lets make a human....(plop) thier is one (plop) thier is 2 let them mate and creat more....

lol

it started out as orginzems
and evolved to somthing els...and so on...we just go the better half...by saying that i mean we didnt evole into a dog or some thing
lol

you missed my point completeley- animals are born with certain survival instincts that they use

for example- a kangroo's baby instinctivley knows to climb inside it's mother's pouch

and please don't pretend to know what I think about god and the orgins of man-

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 07:45 AM
humans are born with certain instincts too as well

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 07:52 AM
You didn't answer my questions though- you just played it off like i'm stupid or that I can't comprehend what the theory is about- If my questions are so Juvenile why didn't you just break it down for me?


why is it humans are the only ones capable of rational thought? Why are we the only things not bound to instincts?
i didnt answer this question because they have been answered so many times in this thread

humans are not the only ones capable of rational thought (rational thought is nothing special.. its only defined as taking in external stimuli, analyzing it with a consistent thought pattern, and then acting on it in a consistent way that ultimately will lead to more benefit than detriment).. we are not the only ones to do this by a long shot... any creature with as suitable central nervous system with a complex nueral network can do this...

we also are not creatures that are NOT bound by instincts. we follow natural instinctual behavior and thought patterns on the regular.

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 10:03 AM
there is truly no way to tell

evolution doesnt have to imply a step "up" in complexity. it simply is a change in the genes..

but from current trends in mating patterns and cultural blending and societal pressures, it is seen already that human height has increased on average of about a quarter of an inch each 60 years or so.. (this may not seem like a big deal but this is amazing!)

In additon, over the last 70 years or so the human thumb is getting closer to the index finger (the reason for this is not known, however it is theorized that over the past 70 years, women are becoming more attracted to men who more than likely have job functions that utilize less thumb strength!) thus in the process the resultant offspring carry the inherited trait of decreased thumb strength and ultimately this manifests itself as the thumb migrating closer to the ijdex finger by way of loss of musculature!

who knows, if this trend continues for another 50,000 years we may not have thumbs at all.. it could possibly fuse with the index finger.. especially since most ppl dont need thumbs for typing and as technology increases the need for physical strength will be a thing of the past!

and then guess what will happen 50,000 years from now... some human will be born with a fully formed developed thumb appendage (by way of genetic birth defect) and then people will debate over the thumb being a vestige of prior evolution!

ultimately, humanity will nevert evolve into a totally different species until there is some sort of biological or geographic isolation between different human populations fo rlong periods of time.. but being that we are a global community this is unlikely to happen until we colonize space!

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 10:57 AM
the evolution of humans brought about by the colonization of space, and the enviromental stresses of living on other planets. id like to see that.

and il be damned if i have kids without a thumb. we need our thumbs thumbs are



the type of evolution brought on by spce colonization would be a mixture of adapting to a new physical environment in addition to a genetic mutation that would change the sexual properties of our gametes (sperm and egg).. so if w sent up a colony in space say to Jupiter and they stay isolated from earth for about 20,000 years and have a genetic code that now incorporates this slight change in our sperm and egg, when they finally do meet up with an earth born human they will not be able to mate because the space sperm will not be congruent with the earth egg. This is how most likely it could occur.. thus the jupiter human's would be a new species of human unable to mate with earth humans due to biological and geographical isolation.

dont worry, none of our kids will be born without thumbs. im talking about kids 50 to 100,000 years from now... in addition, thumbs are only important to us now in the environment we live in.. in fact the whole concept of a physical body with a skeletal system is only important because we live on earth.. everything is relative.. if we were on a diff planet with different gravitational forces , a physical body with an internal skeleton would be detrimental in many cases!

WARPATH
10-31-2005, 11:35 AM
i didnt answer this question because they have been answered so many times in this thread

humans are not the only ones capable of rational thought (rational thought is nothing special.. its only defined as taking in external stimuli, analyzing it with a consistent thought pattern, and then acting on it in a consistent way that ultimately will lead to more benefit than detriment).. we are not the only ones to do this by a long shot... any creature with as suitable central nervous system with a complex nueral network can do this...

we also are not creatures that are NOT bound by instincts. we follow natural instinctual behavior and thought patterns on the regular.
rational thought isn't special? are you serious? Why do humans have a wide arrange of emotions? why do we question our existence? Why do we question our orgins?

I agree with that we follow natural instincts- that's why we mate, we have a survival intinct from birth to nurse from our mothers

but aside from that we can make choice that would go against instict- we're not programmed to just eat meat, we can abstain from sexual intercourse, we can make choices at the drop of hat to end our own very existance

It is our ability think freely that sets us apart from almost all animals, it's our free will that breaks our bonds from nature.

have you've been studying evoulution so long that your convinced it's absolutley the truth? Your a scientist so you do know that evolution is still therory- meaning there isn't enough evidence to confirm that it is the absolute truth. Have you ever stepped outside the box to look for evidence that could disprove the theory? Sureley with your knoweledge of the subject you would be the best canidate to do so.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

^^how do these "hobbit" creatures fit into the evoulution of man?

100pr00f
10-31-2005, 11:54 AM
^^how do these "hobbit" creatures fit into the evoulution of man?


lol the same way midgets fit in are time ......thier are still alot to be found in evolution..as thier are lots of years inbetween then and now.......its like now......in diffent regions of the world will have diff types of birds same with humens..we have diff types of skin
evoulution is more then a theory since thier are artifacts of it

the same with the dinosos....so it more then theory its life ...its real
but u cant seem the except ur ansesters were monkeys lol

just like the reptiles of 2day.. dinos were thier ansesters
known fact

take that home and chew it up.....its delishes

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:05 PM
so taking a long reach here it's possible the aliens are just humans that left earth for many generations and thus evolved into a somewhat different species? or the other way around if something came to earth and was isolated from its original species it could have evolved into the humans of today?
its plausible but unlikely due to our evolutionary past from small mammal to walking primate

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:07 PM
rational thought isn't special? are you serious? Why do humans have a wide arrange of emotions? why do we question our existence? Why do we question our orgins?

I agree with that we follow natural instincts- that's why we mate, we have a survival intinct from birth to nurse from our mothers

but aside from that we can make choice that would go against instict- we're not programmed to just eat meat, we can abstain from sexual intercourse, we can make choices at the drop of hat to end our own very existance

It is our ability think freely that sets us apart from almost all animals, it's our free will that breaks our bonds from nature.

have you've been studying evoulution so long that your convinced it's absolutley the truth? Your a scientist so you do know that evolution is still therory- meaning there isn't enough evidence to confirm that it is the absolute truth. Have you ever stepped outside the box to look for evidence that could disprove the theory? Sureley with your knoweledge of the subject you would be the best canidate to do so.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

^^how do these "hobbit" creatures fit into the evoulution of man?i agree that our mode of thought is different from other animals.. but this is only beause of the way our central nervous system works in conjunction with our nueral network.. its nothing special about it..

so is ur argument that " because we can think and make certain decisions.. we are thus special and not the product of evolution"... thats silly

i step outside the box every day.. honestly in a scientific discipline that relies on new and incoming data there is no box ! one must always have an open mind and be willing to evaluate whatever is "new".. however, to thhis date there has been nothing that violates human evolution in anyway shape or form.

if new primate remains are found.. they fit nicely into the human evolution story!

the question truly is... do u ever step outside ur box?

Sweet6
10-31-2005, 12:14 PM
For the masses who use god as an explanation for their existence; try taking it to the second step...OK, here's the question...Where does god come from? Oops, right back to square one eh? In simplifying your existence to explain why you're here, you've actually complicated the matter, but you chose to stop there because God is all you need to know...no need to think further.

At the beginning of your sentient god's existence, how did he answer the following question to himself, "hmm, why am I here, where did I come from?". Perhaps he explained it in the same manner you have...ahh, a never ending loop with no beginning...I see, it's all clear to me now...god is hogwash. Life isn't a dress rehearsal, this is it...heaven, hell and purgatory are all to be experienced in your lifetime...live life to it's fullest now, for when you die you won't have the ability to ponder why you were wrong...there is no afterlife, there is no god. The god we know is the god we made.

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:15 PM
What caused that evolution to occur?
can being in the presence of another life form cause an evolution to take place since that could contribute to enviromental stresses?
in other words, if mammals came into prolonged contact with a human like species could that have made it evolve into the walking primate?
that my friend is totally plausible.. as long as if these early mammals were influenced in some sort of way that their genetics reflected this change.

for ex.. if early mammals had the privledge of meeting up with human aliens that are already bipedal and then they thus imitate the bipedal walking because they see it as beneficial to life on earth.. and this leads to bipedal walking mammals on earth.. its possible.. but there is no proof for this.. but anything is possible

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:16 PM
For the masses who use god as an explanation for their existence; try taking it to the second step...OK, here's the question...Where does god come from? Oops, right back to square one eh? In simplifying your existence to explain why you're here, you've actually complicated the matter, but you chose to stop there because God is all you need to know...no need to think further.

At the beginning of your sentient god's existence, how did he answer the following question to himself, "hmm, why am I here, where did I come from?". Perhaps he explained it in the same manner you have...ahh, a never ending loop with no beginning...I see, it's all clear to me now...god is hogwash. Life isn't a dress rehearsal, this is it...heaven, hell and purgatory are all to be experienced in your lifetime...live life to it's fullest now, for when you die you won't have the ability to ponder why you were wrong...there is no afterlife, there is no god.
this is what is known as the "First Cause" postulate.. i have never heard a creationist answer to it to this day :)

Sweet6
10-31-2005, 12:19 PM
The question doesn't need to be answered if you don't believe in a god

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:19 PM
What caused that evolution to occur?
can being in the presence of another life form cause an evolution to take place since that could contribute to enviromental stresses?
in other words, if mammals came into prolonged contact with a human like species could that have made it evolve into the walking primate?as of today.. the data that suggests why tetrapods became bipedal is due to the evolution of color vision.. coupled with a change in diet, coupled with a change in geopgraphy..

if a creature can stand up for short stints and reach apples in the trees and possibly walk while holding them, these gives a tremendous survival advantage compared to other creatures that cant do this.

it happens over a long period of time.. bipedalism is both a learned behavior and biological behavior.

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:22 PM
The question doesn't need to be answered if you don't believe in a godi agree, but it would seem to me that those that do would be curious enuff to ponder this question... but most just simply blow it off by saying.. "oh, god is god.. there was no beginning to go"

but we know thats just foolishness in thought

Alucard Dracu
10-31-2005, 12:25 PM
as of today.. the data that suggests why tetrapods became bipedal is due to the evolution of color vision.. coupled with a change in diet, coupled with a change in geopgraphy..

if a creature can stand up for short stints and reach apples in the trees and possibly walk while holding them, these gives a tremendous survival advantage compared to other creatures that cant do this.

it happens over a long period of time.. bipedalism is both a learned behavior and biological behavior.how would color vision aid to upright walking mammal?
the rest of it i understand, kind like when people do trick with there dogs to make them stand on hine legs to grab something. eventually a dog can learn to balance and walk further distance like that or use it to aid in a situation to get something they can tell is out of reach.

Sweet6
10-31-2005, 12:28 PM
That would be total ignorance. Some of my friends are religeous and it makes talking about serious matters not fun. The answers to my questions are always "God wants it that way, God works in mysterious ways"

Brainwashed.

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:33 PM
color vision is important to a creature that is mainly an herbivore.. being able to see colors (ie wghich fruits are riper than others) is a great benefit...now reaching for them was the next step

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:43 PM
pretty much :)

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:52 PM
Yes !

if the selection pressures (environmental stressors)
are strong and consistent enuff (ie we do it all the time with our seletive breeding and bacterial vaccines)

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 12:59 PM
i guess.. i never watched star trek but what u describe is an example of "artificial selection" and thats what im talking about.. but keep n mind.. the star trek blob was a single creature.. "artificial selection" only works on a population of creatures that keep reproducing

because remember. the key to it working is genetic variation/diversity

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 01:16 PM
Yes !

what u need to understand is that thre basically are no limits to what can happen as long as a creature reproduces by sexual means (sperm meets egg and in the process an exchange of genetic material and information between 2 parties) thus creating genetic diversity.

hypothetically, i cat (which is a tetrapod mammal) could be selectively bred in such a way that u decrease its body weight.. the next step would to be to apply environmental stressors to increase forearm strength... the next step would be to decrease hind leg muscle mass...... the next step would be to modify the forearms so that they somewhat develop an enlarged skin appendage between the abdomen and elbow

if this could be successfully carried out u could have a flying animal whose ancestor was a pet cat.

its not that hard to imagine.. i mean after all.. modern bats are nothing but modified tetrapods that were once regular walking mammals.. its all the same thing!

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 01:25 PM
Evolution is like god or some shit. but how can you do that? how would you make something just sprout wings and fly even going through evolutionary steps?wiat a sec.. dont over simplify it!

dont make that mistake in your thinking!

it wont be a creature sprouting wings! it will only be a creature with modified arms that are able to serve the function as wings.

remember.. bird wings are nothing but modified dinosaur arms

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 01:40 PM
what could be something that could make a creatures arms change to be more wing like?
like say you have a food source over wide gap the only way to reach it would be to fly.
the situation would breed the need to have wings to get to the food source.
but wat could actually start the process of the animal changing?nahh thats not how it would work exactly

lets say there is a wide gap or cliff like u say that has precious food.. and u are a 4 legged animal.. u try to jump and u fall to ur death..its just simply too far..

but then the rest of ur population keeps reproducing and lets say that the males who get all the females just so happen to have the strongest arms...thus all of the offspring have this gene for strong arms..

1000 more years pass and by chance there is a genetic mutation that adds an extra strip of muscle and flesh between the arm and body.. this creature finds that this xtra flesh allows it to jump higher and further..

the females of the colony notice this and all flock to mate with this creature. luckily this mutation is inherited in all the babies... leading to a population of creatures who can now jump real high and far (becaus ethe extra skin coupled with
the increased arm strength acts sort of like a parachute and makes them "glide" in the air a bit.

1000 more years pass and eventually thru natural selection, the creatures that have the fleshier arms and strongest arms live longer and have more babies than those who have weak arms........

now the stage is set for an evolutionary event to occur!...more time passes and eventually the creatures discover that if they move their arms back and forth a bit while jumping that they can somewhat glide alot longer and farther!

they keep doing this and it is a learned behavior passed down (in adition, the males that can do this the best get all the ladies and thus pass their genes on)

the end result years later are a population of flying mammals that are now able to reach the other side of the cliff.

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 01:53 PM
exactly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now ur gettin it

and this is where people start to get upset.. because they dont want to think about complex things arising from random luck!

they want life to be more "special" than that.. when in actuality there is nothing really special about life (speaking objectively)

..now in that example we just went thru.. u must realize that it took so long and was left to luck because it was natural! (not controlled by anything other than mother nature and random forces)

however, if lets say, humans were there to help guide this evolution .. it could occur much faster (because we would set out with the specific intent to increase their arm strength.. etc)

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 02:09 PM
legato.. we do it everyday

do u think a pit bull terrier or pink pig is "natural"?

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 02:12 PM
also, thru our continued use of pesticides we have created a whole horde of super insects that are evolutionarily immune to RAID and COMBAT

also.. why do u think we have to keep taking flu shots year after year?..

100pr00f
10-31-2005, 02:30 PM
this is true......ur pretty smart timbs

evolution is a every day thing ...we see it as u just told it ...as in the super insects...that are immune to posions ........and with the flew.......bird flew growing o so strongly...it hasnt evolved to the passing from human to human through air but it will soon...like the

black plage ..................what will the non belivers belive about this...the evolution of commen colds and sickness that we creat and are creating super colds..and so on from daily meds....
what do they call that

gods way of saying were in for it

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 02:54 PM
lol @ "gods way for saying we are in for it".. thats funny.. but not too far from the way many think.

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 02:55 PM
but seriously, i guess the problem is that people desperately want to see a verifiable form of a creature turning into another one right b4 their eyes.. but that will never happen in that way in our life span.

My First Timbs
10-31-2005, 03:16 PM
no problem :)

u are correct.. evolution isnt all about monkeys into man..

evolution explains everything about the world we live in.. all of nature and all of life is controlled by evolution.

u cant study life and biology without understanding evoluton

SubtleEnergies
10-31-2005, 10:06 PM
I don't need to see an animal transform before my eyes. But I hoesntly don't see any of the evidence that I should be seeing if it did happen?

100pr00f
10-31-2005, 11:42 PM
another good evolution state of fourm would be a fish......a fish that can breath air and can live on land.....its around ...its the snake head fish....thats evo...fo sho
they are spreading alot around hear on the east coast
mostly in md...its from china or some shit....

thier is evidence

look that fish up .....snakehead fish....i think thats the name

this fish dosnt need water it can live on land for 2 to 3 good days and it prays on small animls like cats and shit

no lie ...this shit is in the news alot around here

SubtleEnergies
11-01-2005, 04:07 AM
So what ^

I owned axolotls. They have one lung and gills. Doesn't mean they evolved out of a fish.

My First Timbs
11-01-2005, 08:37 AM
the evidence for evolution is everywhere on this planet.. everytime we look at any organism we are studying and admiring evolution.. to blindly deny evolution on a basis of " i dont see any evidence" is just plain unexcusable at this point in human history.

SubtleEnergies
11-01-2005, 08:46 AM
I heard theologist say the exact same arguments about God ^

100pr00f
11-01-2005, 09:19 AM
So what ^

I owned axolotls. They have one lung and gills. Doesn't mean they evolved out of a fish.

but the snkehead fish did
..proven fact.....look it up
im not talking bout a axolotls...damn y u got to change things lol
what u cant explain it lol
cant handle the truth

and they are still evolving as each born fish....can stay out of the water longer and longer each time
no lungs

the spiese is growing now 25 diff kinds of snakeheads are found as they are evolving to diffrent fourms......
soon the fish will possably grow a lung and dosnt have to live in water
the new type found here in md
have grown small back legs so it can move on land....
3 years ago they didnt have this

its could evolution

My First Timbs
11-01-2005, 11:28 AM
I heard theologist say the exact same arguments about God ^
but the diff is that they have no objective evidence.. evolution is founded upon carloads of OBJECTIVE evidence.. not someones personal disbelief or belief

My First Timbs
11-01-2005, 11:32 AM
more importantly to the "bottom line" is that evolution has no burden of proof.. all the evidence points this way and it is testable and provable... so the evolutionists have no burden of proof... it is those who disbelieve evolution who have the burden of proving their claim hat it does not exist...

so prove ur case ......

p.s.. u dont prove ur case by asking questions of evolution



asking questions doesnt show proof of anything.. all it does is show that u have questions.

all of which are very answerable.

SubtleEnergies
11-01-2005, 08:08 PM
You're an idiot. You have no objective evidence...

And 100 proof sorry if I don't look things up when some one who posts with every third word mispelled tells me about a "snakehead fish" - "I think that's the name..."

LOl fuckin idiot...but I will look into it if you insist.

baby jesus
11-01-2005, 09:02 PM
Come On Man Timbs Has Been In This Thread Answerin Everybody's Questions Elobratly And Just Cause You Dont Agree With Him He's An Idiot He's Doin All The Explaining Of All Your Doubts And Why They Are Inaccurate Everytime But He's Stupid I Dont Get That.

100pr00f
11-01-2005, 10:44 PM
You're an idiot. You have no objective evidence...

And 100 proof sorry if I don't look things up when some one who posts with every third word mispelled tells me about a "snakehead fish" - "I think that's the name..."

LOl fuckin idiot...but I will look into it if you insist.
lol

atleast i bring evidincea ...were is urs...to disprove what we are talking.....

how come every body that fights this dosnt bring nothing but q's
what no facts to throw in are face
o sorry for the misspelld words...but im at work so i have to do this shit fast befor the boss finds out what i am doing

i dont have time to speel check likke u

SubtleEnergies
11-02-2005, 02:20 AM
Where the fuck have you been? Read my previous threads. I typed out things from fucking books that were pages long.

And I would continue to do so on each topic except no one (like yourself) reads them. Every time I bring evidence on a particular issue the other side switches subjects.

100pr00f
11-02-2005, 08:14 AM
lol all i see is a copy of some shit that deals with horsses hahahahaha
all the rest is u just complaining.....lol
see i bring pics
sites
facts.....u bring uhhhhh ,................your thoughts...............lol

well befor u go on u check up on what we said look up on what we talk about...couse u aint getting it...u bring q's we bring facts.....

flew.................
super insects.....................
snakehead fish..........................

every couple years all of these thangs evolve....................fact

flew..............getting stronger every year......hince y u have to get a flew shot every year...couse the flew .....keeps comming back stronger more emune to the shit we fight it with

insects.............every year...we are spraying large amounts of posions to get rid of them .......but more and more we did it.....the faster they evolve witch now they are emune to the posions we spray and cant die from it

the fish.............u know what i said check a page back

evolution happen all the time.............

we bring facts ...u just bring ur q's that dont explain ur theories ..............
first... take that list i gave u ....search...and try to disprove them..........and say they didnt evolve................
then u will be doing some thing besides bring ur own thoughts and q's

My First Timbs
11-02-2005, 08:32 AM
lol well said

My First Timbs
11-02-2005, 08:51 AM
i am so tired of hearing about the horse issue.

it seems like year after year creationists cling to the horse phylogeny issue as if its the be all and end all of evolution....

evolution is a science.. science always has the goal of improving on its former self! (thats what makes it science!)

if some horse phylogenies were incorrect many many decades ago.. this has no bearing on the theory of evolution.. this issue has been put to rest for so so so long and horse phylogeny is indeed known.

this is a time tested strategy by the creationists.. to keep rehashing old outdated science instead of the new stuff that is known and improved upon.

My First Timbs
11-02-2005, 08:59 AM
human evolution - prositutes have grown immune to aids in a region in africa.
the aids virus normally kills off all the t cells in the body that would fight infection. but in these african prostitutes there t cells are able to kill the aids virus.
insanity i say insane.
if u think thats amazing and insane.. u have no idea how far the rabbit hole of evolution goes and explains everything......

100pr00f
11-02-2005, 09:23 AM
i bet u in some time in 500 years...africa will be imunne too aids couse of the big out break thier

My First Timbs
11-02-2005, 10:58 AM
thats very plausible and probable... this could occur but it will only occur and sustain itself if there is no outside interference (ie the genetic gene pool is allowed to "weed itself out)... in every population there is always variance.. lets say in every 10,000 women in Uganda.. 1 % possess the protein that makes the HIV virus not "take"... this 1% of the population must be the progenitors of the new evolved HIV resistant population.

this type of evolution happens all the time.. its called a genetic bottleneck, but takes a while.. but it can happen

My First Timbs
11-02-2005, 04:20 PM
evolution is a fucking illusion

happened millions of years ago
still happening
but u cant feel the effect or see the effect for millions of years

rofl

classic
better than religion!!!!
ignorance is bliss

SubtleEnergies
11-03-2005, 06:22 AM
You would know ^

SubtleEnergies
11-03-2005, 06:28 AM
And changing the proportion of a fucking ALREADY PRESENT GENETIC TRAIT in a population such as women who don't take HIV is not evolution. Those genes are already present, the proportion of women with it has changed because the one's without it were dying.

This is like the bullshit moth example you give. Ofcourse the proportion of dark moths increased. The light one's were fucking picked of and the color carries in their genes!

NOW LISTEN - you don't seem to comprehend the majority of what I have said so far.

The darker moths existed BEFORE the population shift to more darker moths. NOTHING EVOLVED. In the same way women already exist who don't take to HIV. So if this gene EXISTS in us and is active in some of us...how does it surving in a higher proprtion of people due to necessity display evolution?! IT DOESN'T! That is survival of the fittest to strengthen the genetic code of humans. IT DOES NOT CHANGE IT!

SubtleEnergies
11-03-2005, 06:30 AM
I will deal with 100proof when he learns the right spellings and contexts of "Flew" and "FLUE" LMAO.


And the horse thing was relevant to the discussion. NO ONE has offered an explanation STILL for the abscence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

100pr00f
11-03-2005, 08:06 AM
lol i know how its spelld ...i do it to piss u off...haha

i told u not to talk unless u can disprove every thing i told u to disprove
damn hardheaded...ur wasting space

i gueeeeees u cant do it ..lol

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 11:27 AM
yea i think we are done here

close thread

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 01:21 PM
Man has devolved or deteriorated into this present form. Far from the original creation. And this devolution continues....

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 01:47 PM
and what exactly is "de evolution"?

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 01:52 PM
The Original creation built things like the pyramids and other things to help them coexist with the earth and not pollute destroy what allows them and everything else to live.

Devolve is in the American standard dictionary it means to deteriorate.

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 02:59 PM
it maybe in the american standard dictionary but it isnt in any scientific lexicon.

i c what u mean now... but that is more of a cultural societal issue.. not a scientific one pertaining to human evolution.

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 03:05 PM
it maybe in the american standard dictionary but it isnt in any scientific lexicon.

i c what u mean now... but that is more of a cultural societal issue.. not a scientific one pertaining to human evolution.I think we maybe getting off the subject but I must ask who determines "scientific lexicon"? Whether or not it is scientific lexicon is another topic but the truth remains that people have devolved.

Punch
11-04-2005, 03:10 PM
the truth remains that people have devolved.
how so?

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 03:27 PM
I think we maybe getting off the subject but I must ask who determines "scientific lexicon"? Whether or not it is scientific lexicon is another topic but the truth remains that people have devolved.peer reviewed scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals

science is built upon a framework of validity, verification and reproducibility..

thus u cant just have any old joes throw words around and expect them to be widely used, understood and applicable to science.

de-evolution makes no sense according to the scientific discipline of evolution and genetics.. however it makes sense in everyday jargon.. but scientifically it is incorrect

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 03:30 PM
according to the definition being used of "devolving" any change for the "perceived" worse can be seen as devolving, but how do we determine which changes are for the worse?

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 03:31 PM
"How so?" That depends on your current mind state. If you think that going from Kings and Queens to becoming Pimps and whores is an advancement or is it something more sinister.

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 03:34 PM
see this is the thing.. u cant judge a change. a perceived change for the worse could ultimately provide great benefit. (in the long run)

im talking from an objective scientific mindst.. not a cultural, societal and emotional one.

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 03:36 PM
and this si why the word devolve cant be accepted by the scientists!

because evolution does not imply "progress" !

but the word devolve used in lay jargon implies advancement and progress vs, deterioration!

we are on 2 difff planes

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 03:40 PM
mmmm scientific bomb drop, that kinda makes evolution more understandable to me now. evolution doesnt necesserly mean progress although that can be a benefit from evolution.exactly legato.. ur gettin it! :)

see we humans are biased ! our definition of progress is skewed toward whatver benefits us and we perceive as advancement!

evolution simply means change!

whether that change works out for the good or bad is irrelevant and ultimately totally subjective to the species we are talking about!

so is the chimpanzee less evolved than the human? according to the american dictionary and the jaargon of "devolution" you would assume so!

but scientifically thats not the case by a long shot!

the chimpanzee isnt "less evolved" than you or me... its simply different!

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 03:45 PM
Look at you with your THOUSANDS of books sold promoting the fact that evolution disproves the Existence of God....

Ignorant fool...

So in your book a call to sanity, you're saying what? Religion is INSANITY?

Based on this unfounded BULLSHIT you call evolution.

There is more scientific evidence for the existence of God than evolution.lol,, i just went back and read these posts.. didnt c them before.. LMAO !

LHX
11-04-2005, 03:46 PM
i still asked questions that never got answered in this thread

dammit

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 03:46 PM
peer reviewed scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals

science is built upon a framework of validity, verification and reproducibility..

thus u cant just have any old joes throw words around and expect them to be widely used, understood and applicable to science.

de-evolution makes no sense according to the scientific discipline of evolution and genetics.. however it makes sense in everyday jargon.. but scientifically it is incorrect


We have gotten off the subject. First, as a Scientist I don't consider myself "any old joe". If the root of the word in de-evolution is evolution how can you say it is scientifically inncorrect? "Peer reviewed scientist" are no different from anyone else they add and take away words only because they are in a position to do so.

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 03:49 PM
i know this is off topic, but u should know that a word that makes sense in normal american speak could have totally different meaning (and in this case no meaning) in a scientific discipline from which this word is derived.

thats my point..

i could have a definition of a theory in normal speak, but within the realm of the science, it can have a totally different meaning (or lack there of).. thats my point... and in this thread we are discussing the science!

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 03:58 PM
i know this is off topic, but u should know that a word that makes sense in normal american speak could have totally different meaning (and in this case no meaning) in a scientific discipline from which this word is derived.

thats my point..

i could have a definition of a theory in normal speak, but within the realm of the science, it can have a totally different meaning (or lack there of).. thats my point... and in this thread we are discussing the science!

I am positive that there are plenty of words that had a different meaning before "peer reviewed scientist" gave them a scientific meaning. I take a more universal approach in dealing with this amalgamation that we call the English language.

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 04:03 PM
yes.. there are some words that are in scientific lexicons that have their basis in normal english language...but these words do not define or explain a discipline!

thats why the word "devolve" arouses so much disgust to evolutionists because it totally contradicts the true biological meaning of "evolve".

now first and foremost.. donrt get me wrong.. there is nothing wrong with the word devolve.. im just saying it has no place in biology. i understand totally the cultural and societal definition it has, but this type of definition and what it implies goes against the biological understanding of evolution.

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 04:08 PM
yes.. there are some words that are in scientific lexicons that have their basis in normal english language...but these words do not define or explain a discipline!

thats why the word "devolve" arouses so much disgust to evolutionists because it totally contradicts the true biological meaning of "evolve".

now first and foremost.. donrt get me wrong.. there is nothing wrong with the word devolve.. im just saying it has no place in biology.

To devolve would contradict its root word evolve. De- in devolve brings about the contradiction. Evolutionist shouldn't get so emotional ,"the word "devolve" arouses so much disgust to evolutionists," if there is truth in a word.

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 04:10 PM
If I were a "peer reviewed scientist" would you accept it?

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 04:12 PM
it causes disgust for a good reason...

many people already have a messed up .. off kilter distorted view of what evolution really is.. so for them to now get it more twisted by adhering to the definition implied in the word "devolve" is cause for concern!

its no wonder questions are asked like " if humans came form monkeys, why are there still monkeys around".. these type of questions are fueled by a lack of understanding of biological evolution. the word devolve adds to it by making one think that the evolutionary process involves "improvements" and "advancement"

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 04:14 PM
If I were a "peer reviewed scientist" would you accept it?good question.. the answer is yes.

if the word was peer reviewed and explained in a biological journal as having some merit and meaning within the realm of biological evolution.. i would be forced to happily accept it...

in order for this to happen.. the fundamental definition of evolution would first have to be changed and the rationale for its change would have to be successfully defended

Wamukota X
11-04-2005, 04:37 PM
good question.. the answer is yes.

if the word was peer reviewed and explained in a biological journal as having some merit and meaning within the realm of biological evolution.. i would be forced to happily accept it...

in order for this to happen.. the fundamental definition of evolution would first have to be changed and the rationale for its change would have to be successfully defended

I rest my case.

My First Timbs
11-04-2005, 04:51 PM
im simply demonstrating how within the discipline there is basically a "quality control"

that qc is carried out by the act of peer review where every change, or addition to a theory must go thru rigorous skepticism and proof before it can be accepted and categorized within the recognized nomenclature

teh word devolve has yet to do this. and more importantly in doing so, it would change the very definition of evolution.

SubtleEnergies
11-06-2005, 12:09 AM
LOL
You guys answer nothing then want to close the thread.

Anyways, I am over it. It's a one-sided discussion.

Wamukota X
11-06-2005, 02:13 PM
Did someone say close this thread??

My First Timbs
11-06-2005, 06:24 PM
ok
last call for more questions/rebuttals.

Aqueous Moon
11-06-2005, 06:33 PM
Peace timbs

The reason why I feel evolution is so offensive is because it strives to prove that true human origin is less than divine.

Im not a professional scientist but, I do have respect for what you do.

I think it goes way deeper than scientific formulas...human origin and essence is undoubtedly supreme. Your "evolution" leaves no room for human genius.

It doesn't get to the point of anything...in fact it does nothing but confuse and cover the true purpose and invention of human existence.

So, no I can't speak the jargon with you but, my common sense tells me the jargon of evolution is confusion.

Peace

My First Timbs
11-06-2005, 06:55 PM
peace

i understand exactly what u are saying but ultimately most people who are evolutionists think totally different than what u are stating.

when u say that evolution basically confuses everything and makes our existence "less than special", to us, the "evolutionists" it does exactly the opposite

the theory of evolution provides us with the knowledge of exactly what our origins are and our place in the universe.. embracing it provides us with a sense of wonderment, awe and reverence and respect for the world we live in!

to me.. there is nothing more awe inspring and "special" than embracing our evokutionary past and present and possible future.

evolution doesnt take awy from the joys of life.. in my opinion it actually makes life much more enjoyable on a "spritual level" !

if we are the result of a naturl occurence and their is not necessarily a divine thing about us.. this means that life is very very precious! its precious because we are lucky to be here conversing with eachother! we are lucky that the dinosaurs dies off and allowed mammals to take the throne!

there is nothing more awe inspiring and spiritual than realizing that we are indeed special!

the problem is that the spiritual creationist viewpoint is that it proclaims we are specially created but not because of an unslefish awe of nature, but rather a selfish humanistic bias!

My First Timbs
11-06-2005, 06:56 PM
in addition.. if common sense tells u there is something fishy about evolution .. this basically means that u must learn more about it and approach it from a totally objective unemotional view.

evolution doesnt take away from our specialness.. in my opinion it wholeheartedly adds to it a million times more than creation by a divine deity

Aqueous Moon
11-06-2005, 07:09 PM
Peace

This is what I just got from your last post:

Religion is not logical

Evolution blends human existance and nature to create a whole "pictue" or explanation

There is no spook in the sky ( divine deity)

Evolution is more politcally correct than saying that the blackman is God

I understand where you are coming form now. I didn't say that we are special, I said divine. I mean we are whole. We are complete and we had to have started out that way.

If we didn't then there is no Sun, Moon, or Stars. Our whole atmosphere depends on our exsistance. I just don't agree with you but ...I respect your views.

Peace

My First Timbs
11-06-2005, 07:21 PM
Religion is not logical
as long as we define religion as an outward or inward act by which man shows appreciation and worship to a higher being.. i say yes.. it is illogical

Evolution blends human existance and nature to create a whole "pictue" or explanation
yes..but humanity is only a small part of it..evolution takes into account all living things ... humanity is a small part of it.

There is no spook in the sky ( divine deity)
correct

Evolution is more politcally correct than saying that the blackman is Godnot really sure what u mean by this.. i dont believe the black man is god

I mean we are whole. We are complete and we had to have started out that way.
how do u come to this conclusion that we were created like this and did not evolve thru cumulative modicfication.are u saying that only humans we created whole or all living things were created as is?

If we didn't then there is no Sun, Moon, or Stars. Our whole atmosphere depends on our exsistance

why? our atmosphere doesnt depend on us? im not sure if u are speaking literally or metaphorically?

My First Timbs
11-06-2005, 07:26 PM
ultimately and more importantly.. to deny evolution is to go aganist the evidence!

its not even a matter of "did evolution ever occur and does it occur",, because this has been put to rest for well over 100 years.

the argument and debate now is whether evolution still occurs, how will it manifest itself later and what can we do to alter it and control it.

Aqueous Moon
11-06-2005, 07:34 PM
I would think that you were familiar with that statement - the black man is God...but if not I will do the details.

The original human could not have been "created". That would suggest an intelligence higher than his self.

Why is it that the explantion of evolution is allowed to trump the idea of "humanity", by procaliming it seperate and distinct than that of scientific nature?

That is what I mean when I say that we are whole...you can seperate church and state, but you can never seperate the human body from the human intelligence.

Iam speaking literally and metaphorically when I say our atmosphere depends on us. Is it not scientifically proven that human pollution has caused changes in our atmosphere?

If there were no humans to till the ground, what would become of this earth ?

Metaphorically, we are perfect reflections of the universe and its structure and it's contained revolutions.

Peace

Aqueous Moon
11-06-2005, 07:37 PM
Peace

I didn't mean to go into debate with you. I feel ill equipped since I have not studied biology as exstensively as you have so I was expressing opinion and not attempting to ignore your "evidence"

cd
11-07-2005, 04:28 AM
How would evolution state that humans are less Divine? Everything you see is Divine, even what you think is negative from your frame of reference. Humans are no "better" or 'divine" than any other living creature.

It amazes me that almost every single religion and/or philosophy is the same. They all tear eachother apart and think they are all wrong, and theirs is the way, but they all strive for the same simplistic goals. To put simple minds at ease and say, "Hush, child eveything is ok, you are so special, you are the most precious thing in the universe and god loves you the best". It's childish and just shows a weakness in the ego

If you sift thru all the made up garbage people have come up with to make themselves better, there are underlying messages that permeate through every contemplative philosophy, from the eastern beliefs, to the Big Three, to all the new age bs, to even science. It's those messages that are always ignored. Once you realize that everything you see, you are a part of, than you can begin to get a better understanding.

100pr00f
11-07-2005, 09:49 AM
mamith= elephant= evolution

haha

FIDM 85
11-07-2005, 03:52 PM
Please Go Visit The "apllies 2all W/a Brain" Thread. Thanks!!!

PJ FlemFlam
11-07-2005, 04:37 PM
dig'n into evidence,not pre evidence but turns up through time while zhit advances,anyway i like to look into zhit before i jump the gun

PJ FlemFlam
11-07-2005, 04:39 PM
i think itz phony,cause some won't agree with me on itz findings

Jamal Arief
03-09-2007, 02:56 PM
Ok, here’s what I think: First of all, there is – as far as I know – no proof that all life came from one common ancestor, the first cell. But it is still foolish not to assume that, simply because there is no better theory than evolution. Here’s why:
1. The theory of evolution is able to explain the biological diversity we observe today while not depending on any other assumptions other than the laws of nature.
2. The theory is supported by an incredibly huge amount of circumstantial evidence, both on the macroscopic and microscopic scale.
3. In fact the theory is so good and reliable, that it is possible to work with it (evolutionary principles in IT, social and biological sciences...), as well as predict and explain even the smallest abnormalities (such as why horses and donkeys can have offspring together).
After Timbs very nice explanations most of the people seem to at least agree that we are all related to all other life forms (even those that don’t use oxygen metabolism and sun light as an energy source). Fine! So where is the evidence that one species descends from another? Where are the transition forms?
Here it is essential to be aware of the fact that fossils are actually quite rare. We have been able to find only a handful of skeletons from dinosaurs, prehistoric animals or early humans. Furthermore (as Timbs already said) evolution does not take place at a constant rate, but instead the pace depends on the degree of change in the environmental conditions. Therefore it can be assumed that transition states are not very long-lived. So, if there’s thousands or even millions of years between fossil findings it is not very likely that we will stumble across a lot of common ancestors/transition states of mammals anytime soon.
However, it’s a lot different if you look at the microscopic domain. With high reproduction rates and short generation times viruses and bacteria and other small genetic elements are prime models for the study of genetics and evolution. E.g. by exposing bacterial populations to environmental changes you now have billions of billions of chances in a short time period to screen for genomic adaptations. You can study surviving bacterial populations and look at the genetic and molecular basis of the adaptation. In each and every case you will realize that the difference between the original bacterial genome and the one of the adapted population is of exactly the same kind as the difference between the genomes of unrelated species. In most cases you will find substitutions in the genetic code that will account for a different (enhanced, lowered or completely changed) function of a cellular component. And then you will find that this change in function will explain the higher survival rate of the adapted bacterial population under the changed environmental conditions. Example: Raise the temperature and you will find that most of the adapted populations will have mutations in genes that encode for cellular components that are known for their role in the safety mechanisms of cells under high temperatures (e.g. so called heat-shock proteins). Hundreds and thousands of those experiments have been conducted (I have done it personally, and I’m sure Timbs has done it too) and you can read about them in detail if you look into any (bio)scientific magazine. Maybe you have done similar experiments yourself if you are a gardener or farmer and ever bred plants. In fact, each of those experiments is a pretty strong proof for the theory of evolution, because the difference between species (which by the way is based on a completely arbitrary definition) only depends on the quantity of such mutations. Or in other words: Each of the adapted “quasispecies” is a transition state organism (albeit in the very first stages...). You can also think of them as different variants (or “races” if you are one of those guys...) of the same species, because they underwent slight adaptational changes due to environmental conditions. If you invest enough time with your bacteria eventually you will be able to breed one species from another – just by changing the environmental conditions.

Peace.

Black Man
03-09-2007, 03:26 PM
Can somebody define what evolution is? Now what they 'believe' or 'think' it is, but what it is in the scientific community.

Jamal Arief
03-09-2007, 10:50 PM
"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics, or traits of a population of organisms. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

You can trust these sources. I checked them, and I'm a biological scientist as well.

A few more thoughts:
You can drop a stone one billion times. If you are here on earth I'm sure you will agree that it will fall to the ground every single time. The theory may be hard to prove but there hasnt been one documented and approved case in which shit didnt drop into the toilet - eventually... So wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to assume a gravitational force since the shit is dropping so reliably? For me it makes life much easier to rely on gravity so that I do not need to be at some Superpower's mercy everytime I wish to empty my bowels... Relying on gravity helped us to go to the moon, put satellites into space, program (more or less) realistic computer games and countless other things! Well, it's the same with evolution.

Well, if you do not trust natural sciences at all that's a whole different issue.
Of course you can assume all kinds of things and still come to logical conclusions based on that (at least if you do trust logic). I suppose this is called philosophy (no disrespect). Now you can go doubt your own existence and that's fair enough. But when you run into a wall you still say "ouch". This is because with a limited set of assumptions unfortunately it's not possible to explain the universe and all our questions, ways and actions by logical deduction only. Well, at least it has not been done yet. So in a way it's a matter of common sense and pragmatism! And until then it seems wise to observe nature, propose hypotheses and see if they stands the test of time. That is what science is, in a nuthshell. Stop, look, listen, observe and respect! Then formulate a verifiable or falsifiable(!!!) hypothesis and hope nobody can falsify it. Simply put: If you assume everything and keep on taking out the false you are approximating the truth.
The other option is to hold on to esoteric, pseudoscientifc and/or religious beliefs that are based on huge sets of assumptions and propose unverifiable hypotheses. Ok, that's it. I'll go take a shit. *makeaprayer*

Oh, one last thing: I don't want to disrespect any religious or esoteric beliefs. Not even trying to refutre them! After all, our understanding of the universe is far from complete, even when it comes to physical laws. If we proceed to find out about those things and improve our experimental techniques, we will be able to confirm some of the beliefs and previously unverifiable hypotheses can then be tested. And in fact, people need to think the unthinkable for science to move on. So we need people to push the borders of mind, body and soul...

It's all love.

Peace.

Sniki
03-13-2007, 12:17 PM
Strange.

Battle 1
03-14-2007, 09:13 PM
LMAO if the world was covered in water we would evole gills?!

Do you know how unlikely that is? Its not possible. About as possible as fish coming on land.

I wanted to make an evolution thread but I don't think it could be discussed maturely...

Like Kevin Costner in that movie 'Waterworld'. Dope flick. BUT no really on the real it would than be like reverse evolution. Everything started in the ocean. The eveloution of how man and every life-form on land came to be actually started in the ocean. It goes like this earth was created by the right conditions being met in outerspace, gasses or chemical compounds coming together in the right place at the right time. The earth was or still is covered by 90% water. So amfibiens or underwater life forms existed first. Than evolved into reptilians or reptiles, which than evolved into mammals. Human beings belong to the race of mammals. You can see that there are certain reptilians or reptiles like alligators and crocodiles that live in both water and land. And also can see their resmeblance to their cousins the snakes which exist in both environments, purely underwater snakes that only breath underwater, to land snakes that do not. Then you can see other examples like Seals that are in fact mammals that can breathe underwater for an enormous amount of time. Dolphins are another perfect example of this evolutionary theory. And from there on it is pretty easy to see how the evolution of animals took place on land into the various forms of the animal kingdom that we have on land today that make up the mammals. Lions there cousins the tigers, plus bears, gorrillas, monkeys , and so forth then man. In between all that alot happened of course, Elephants, girraffes, antelopes, ants, etc. Very diverse and it went into many different directions.

It must be noted that evolution takes millions of years or even more. SO yes it is very slow, a very slow process and as stated by somneone else in this thread we will never most likely see it happen ourselves. But if we do that would surely be something to see no doubt.


:list: :clap: :nerdy: It can even be broken down into molecules if you really wanna take it there, to the very beggining of the universe even. The end and the beggining are the same. In the end we and everything all go back to that which is the essence of our creation, unconcious matter or the building blocks of life even. Molecules and particles unconcious life (unconcious to us anyway) which then in fact became atoms the building blocks of life as we know it.

The cycle of all life goes the beggining is the end. The end is a new beggining. Therfore the end and the beggining are the same.