Lets talk about Evolution.

[The Godfather]

Ahh i also wonder why Africans are very much more likely to get AIDS than whites.

 

[shoRunner]

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Asian people are quite hairy.

lol i'd like pics of an asian person with hair on their legs....lol jk...all of my asian friends still don't even have to shave daily.

 

[panipoori]

Originally posted by: shoRunner

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Asian people are quite hairy.

lol i'd like pics of an asian person with hair on their legs....lol jk...all of my asian friends still don't even have to shave daily.

I've never seen an asian with arm hair.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: panipoori

Originally posted by: shoRunner

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Asian people are quite hairy.

lol i'd like pics of an asian person with hair on their legs....lol jk...all of my asian friends still don't even have to shave daily.

I've never seen an asian with arm hair.

of course Asians are hairy just check the malay nations and not forgetting India.

 

[RandomCoil]

For an enjoyable read on humans and hair, follow the link below.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2281888

As for skin color, consider that the increase in melanin in dark skin safely absorbs UV rays preventing damage and cancer. However, it also reduces the skin's ability to produce (necessary) vitamin D. This is concistent with the tanning response individuals go through on exposure to excess sun light, and the steady loss of that 'tan' when sun exposure is reduced.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Call it what you will, a strawman it is not. It is a viable scientific fact. Biology clearly defines a transitionanal form.

Biology doesn't define anything. Biologists define biological terms, and by any authoritative definition of "transitional form" there exist plenty of transitional human forms.

We have many transitional fossils for many creatures, including whales, apes, and fish. In fact, the first creature labled transitional is the Archaeopteryx in 1861, and seven more of these transitional creatures have been found since then. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird. The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is also documented. Between the Permian and Triassic periods is when we have fossels supporting this transition. Step-by-step the reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary.

How is this consistent with your earlier statement, "The fossil record which is our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms" (emphasis mine)?

In other words, there is no proof of any kind of a "missing link".

What would this "missing link" acutally link together if it existed, according to you?

We have evidence of many transitional creatures, yet none for humans. Why is that do you think?

I asked a question. Answer it.

Spent a bit of time on this site, and it is interesting indeed; however, I havent yet found any kind of evidence other than early man and apes. No where does it show any kind of transitional proof like we have with other species.

What more evidence is needed? The evidence is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientists are not obligated to satisfy your unreasonable doubts.

The concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive at best. This similarity is an exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man andchimpanzee. The sequence analysis that was made is called "DNA hybridization" On the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins, and only those limited number of proteins have been compared. However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins. Sorry, that's science.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE HAVE A PLAGIARIST IN OUR MIDST!!

Please allow me to quote the REAL author of the material that blackangst1 hsa dishonestly represented as his own:

(I've bolded what you've stolen from him)

First, it should be stated that the concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive.

In order to claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee bear a 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped, just like that of man, the two have to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the human gene has been mapped. No such research has yet been done on the chimpanzee.

In reality, the 98 % similarity between human and chimpanzee genes, which now and then enters the agenda, is a propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared

However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.

(From: http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_9.html)

Now, for one, Harun Yaha is a total quack. He's a Holocaust denier, for god's sake. He wrote a book called "The Holocaust Hoax." 'Nuff said.

Second, his claims are utter nonsense. The genome of the chimpanzee has been completely mapped, and found to have a 99% similiarity just as predicted in the earlier comparisons.

Thirdly, however, I want to point out the utter shamelessness with which you simply copied n' pasted some claptrap you read on a website as a response to my points. Is that REALLY your approach to scholarship? Did you think no one would notice? Or do you really see nothing wrong with what you've done?

Regardless, it should be patently obvious that you've lost all credibility as any type of authority with regard to such a scholarly topic as evolution.

{snip}


-Garth

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Do you believe it?

I personally don't know. The idea of a common ancestor (for example: Adam and Eve) is kind of weird. Because if you think about it, when Adam and Eve have kids, who are the kids gonna mate with? Themselves? And even if a brother and a sister are willing to do that, what ensured that they even had a boy and a girl?

I dont believe we came from apes, nor do i believe that some guy in the sky flipped his majic wand and created man.

It's not a question of "belief," and nature/God doesn't care whether or not you like how monkeys look. "Evolution" is a fact of nature; organisms will adapt to their surroundings. It isn't a question of what sounds good to you, it's a matter of proven fact. Get over it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Call it what you will, a strawman it is not. It is a viable scientific fact. Biology clearly defines a transitionanal form.

Biology doesn't define anything. Biologists define biological terms, and by any authoritative definition of "transitional form" there exist plenty of transitional human forms.

We have many transitional fossils for many creatures, including whales, apes, and fish. In fact, the first creature labled transitional is the Archaeopteryx in 1861, and seven more of these transitional creatures have been found since then. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird. The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is also documented. Between the Permian and Triassic periods is when we have fossels supporting this transition. Step-by-step the reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary.

How is this consistent with your earlier statement, "The fossil record which is our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms" (emphasis mine)?

In other words, there is no proof of any kind of a "missing link".

What would this "missing link" acutally link together if it existed, according to you?

We have evidence of many transitional creatures, yet none for humans. Why is that do you think?

I asked a question. Answer it.

Spent a bit of time on this site, and it is interesting indeed; however, I havent yet found any kind of evidence other than early man and apes. No where does it show any kind of transitional proof like we have with other species.

What more evidence is needed? The evidence is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientists are not obligated to satisfy your unreasonable doubts.

The concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive at best. This similarity is an exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man andchimpanzee. The sequence analysis that was made is called "DNA hybridization" On the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins, and only those limited number of proteins have been compared. However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins. Sorry, that's science.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE HAVE A PLAGIARIST IN OUR MIDST!!

Please allow me to quote the REAL author of the material that blackangst1 hsa dishonestly represented as his own:

(I've bolded what you've stolen from him)

First, it should be stated that the concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive.

In order to claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee bear a 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped, just like that of man, the two have to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the human gene has been mapped. No such research has yet been done on the chimpanzee.

In reality, the 98 % similarity between human and chimpanzee genes, which now and then enters the agenda, is a propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared

However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.

(From: http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_9.html)

Now, for one, Harun Yaha is a total quack. He's a Holocaust denier, for god's sake. He wrote a book called "The Holocaust Hoax." 'Nuff said.

Second, his claims are utter nonsense. The genome of the chimpanzee has been completely mapped, and found to have a 99% similiarity just as predicted in the earlier comparisons.

Thirdly, however, I want to point out the utter shamelessness with which you simply copied n' pasted some claptrap you read on a website as a response to my points. Is that REALLY your approach to scholarship? Did you think no one would notice? Or do you really see nothing wrong with what you've done?

Regardless, it should be patently obvious that you've lost all credibility as any type of authority with regard to such a scholarly topic as evolution.

{snip}


-Garth

First. When I was earlier speaking of transitional forms or proof thereof, I was speaking as to humans. I never denied evolution's existence at all. Quite the opposite actually. I was simply stating that although there is sufficient evidence to support that the humans that walked the earth a million years ago are somewhat different than ones today, there remains lack of any evidence that humans have evolved from any kind of single celled organism. Or somehow we are linked to the fishes of the sea. THAT'S the argument I am trying to withhold. There is plent of evidence of OTHER creatures completely evolving from one creature to another totally different creature. But not for humans.

Second. OK so it's been a decade since I was in college and couldnt whip up EVERYTHING off the top of my head. But...I didnt steal Dr. Yaha's material, I was simply using his findings to support my side. Bah ok I didnt link the source. So sorry. But it doesnt change my side of the argument. OK so he's a muslim and therefore denies the holocaust...so what? It doesnt negate any of the findings in his studies. Not at all. I'm sure there are a few points I think Stephen Hawking is off his rocker (no pun intended) on, but that doesnt negate his findings and studies in space research. Does it?

Lastly, to answer your earlier question, the missing link I am lokking for is a transitional being. Transitional between human and whatever it is you think we were before we were humans. As previously stated by be (info again pulled from another science site coz I had forgotten the facts but not the info) the Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional creature. Well documented. Thats all. Just something that shows us evolving from whatever it is we were before we were humans.

 

[Baked]

Your dad's a monkey.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: arcenite
Mitsubishi sucks :Q

Damn, first response....

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Call it what you will, a strawman it is not. It is a viable scientific fact. Biology clearly defines a transitionanal form.

Biology doesn't define anything. Biologists define biological terms, and by any authoritative definition of "transitional form" there exist plenty of transitional human forms.

We have many transitional fossils for many creatures, including whales, apes, and fish. In fact, the first creature labled transitional is the Archaeopteryx in 1861, and seven more of these transitional creatures have been found since then. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird. The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is also documented. Between the Permian and Triassic periods is when we have fossels supporting this transition. Step-by-step the reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary.

How is this consistent with your earlier statement, "The fossil record which is our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms" (emphasis mine)?

In other words, there is no proof of any kind of a "missing link".

What would this "missing link" acutally link together if it existed, according to you?

We have evidence of many transitional creatures, yet none for humans. Why is that do you think?

I asked a question. Answer it.

Spent a bit of time on this site, and it is interesting indeed; however, I havent yet found any kind of evidence other than early man and apes. No where does it show any kind of transitional proof like we have with other species.

What more evidence is needed? The evidence is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientists are not obligated to satisfy your unreasonable doubts.

The concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive at best. This similarity is an exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man andchimpanzee. The sequence analysis that was made is called "DNA hybridization" On the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins, and only those limited number of proteins have been compared. However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins. Sorry, that's science.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE HAVE A PLAGIARIST IN OUR MIDST!!

Please allow me to quote the REAL author of the material that blackangst1 hsa dishonestly represented as his own:

(I've bolded what you've stolen from him)

First, it should be stated that the concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive.

In order to claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee bear a 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped, just like that of man, the two have to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the human gene has been mapped. No such research has yet been done on the chimpanzee.

In reality, the 98 % similarity between human and chimpanzee genes, which now and then enters the agenda, is a propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared

However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.

(From: http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_9.html)

Now, for one, Harun Yaha is a total quack. He's a Holocaust denier, for god's sake. He wrote a book called "The Holocaust Hoax." 'Nuff said.

Second, his claims are utter nonsense. The genome of the chimpanzee has been completely mapped, and found to have a 99% similiarity just as predicted in the earlier comparisons.

Thirdly, however, I want to point out the utter shamelessness with which you simply copied n' pasted some claptrap you read on a website as a response to my points. Is that REALLY your approach to scholarship? Did you think no one would notice? Or do you really see nothing wrong with what you've done?

Regardless, it should be patently obvious that you've lost all credibility as any type of authority with regard to such a scholarly topic as evolution.

{snip}


-Garth

First. When I was earlier speaking of transitional forms or proof thereof, I was speaking as to humans. I never denied evolution's existence at all. Quite the opposite actually. I was simply stating that although there is sufficient evidence to support that the humans that walked the earth a million years ago are somewhat different than ones today, there remains lack of any evidence that humans have evolved from any kind of single celled organism. Or somehow we are linked to the fishes of the sea. THAT'S the argument I am trying to withhold. There is plent of evidence of OTHER creatures completely evolving from one creature to another totally different creature. But not for humans.

Second. OK so it's been a decade since I was in college and couldnt whip up EVERYTHING off the top of my head. But...I didnt steal Dr. Yaha's material, I was simply using his findings to support my side. Bah ok I didnt link the source. So sorry. But it doesnt change my side of the argument. OK so he's a muslim and therefore denies the holocaust...so what? It doesnt negate any of the findings in his studies. Not at all. I'm sure there are a few points I think Stephen Hawking is off his rocker (no pun intended) on, but that doesnt negate his findings and studies in space research. Does it?

Lastly, to answer your earlier question, the missing link I am lokking for is a transitional being. Transitional between human and whatever it is you think we were before we were humans. As previously stated by be (info again pulled from another science site coz I had forgotten the facts but not the info) the Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional creature. Well documented. Thats all. Just something that shows us evolving from whatever it is we were before we were humans.

considering your apparent lack of ability to grasp evolution, you now want to disprove Stephen Hawking's theories?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Originally posted by: ed21x
yeah, it's definitely a bit of a stretch to think that man came from apes.... but even more, how do you explains whales?!? after so many years, you'd think the dumb animals would learn to breathe under water

Don't they call that adaptation? I mean.. i know for sure evolution exists. But not necessarily for humans. We're studying it right now in Bio. I dont know what other theories are out there exept Evolution, Creationism and some other ones which i do not remember nor do i know what they mean.

What makes you think humans are any different from the rest of the life on earth? What, you think we're aliens? Then why do we have the same biological systems as other animals?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Godfather, you don't understand evolution at all. Go read a book.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Originally posted by: ed21x
yeah, it's definitely a bit of a stretch to think that man came from apes.... but even more, how do you explains whales?!? after so many years, you'd think the dumb animals would learn to breathe under water

Don't they call that adaptation? I mean.. i know for sure evolution exists. But not necessarily for humans. We're studying it right now in Bio. I dont know what other theories are out there exept Evolution, Creationism and some other ones which i do not remember nor do i know what they mean.

What makes you think humans are any different from the rest of the life on earth? What, you think we're aliens? Then why do we have the same biological systems as other animals?

Aliens HAHA! If you cant see the difference between humans and every other creature on earth, well...I dont think a messageboard is gonna change your mind. Once someone provides a transitional creature from whatever we were before we were homosapiens and what we are now, I'll change MY opinion. But that evidence doesnt exist. It does for other creatures, but not humans. *shrug*

As far as our biological systems...yeah we are similar to many creatures. But humans posses 2 things no other creatures do - a soul, and the ability to reason. But thats another topic for another day.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Or somehow we are linked to the fishes of the sea.

you do know that you develop gills in the womb, right?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
As far as our biological systems...yeah we are similar to many creatures. But humans posses 2 things no other creatures do - a soul, and the ability to reason. But thats another topic for another day.

as to the first, have any proof of said soul?

as to the second, ever seen monkeys use tools to accomplish what they need to do?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Originally posted by: ed21x
yeah, it's definitely a bit of a stretch to think that man came from apes.... but even more, how do you explains whales?!? after so many years, you'd think the dumb animals would learn to breathe under water

Don't they call that adaptation? I mean.. i know for sure evolution exists. But not necessarily for humans. We're studying it right now in Bio. I dont know what other theories are out there exept Evolution, Creationism and some other ones which i do not remember nor do i know what they mean.

What makes you think humans are any different from the rest of the life on earth? What, you think we're aliens? Then why do we have the same biological systems as other animals?

Aliens HAHA! If you cant see the difference between humans and every other creature on earth, well...I dont think a messageboard is gonna change your mind. Once someone provides a transitional creature from whatever we were before we were homosapiens and what we are now, I'll change MY opinion. But that evidence doesnt exist. It does for other creatures, but not humans. *shrug*

As far as our biological systems...yeah we are similar to many creatures. But humans posses 2 things no other creatures do - a soul, and the ability to reason. But thats another topic for another day.

There are plenty of transitional fossils. Ever heard of Cro Magnon man, homo erectus, homo neanderthalis, etc? There's more evidence of transitional species than there is of a "soul". As for the ability to reason, plenty of animals can reason. A dolphin can reason well enough to push levers for sex and do synchronized tricks.
A cat is smarter than a jellyfish... does that mean there is some drastic difference in how you must explain their origins? Isn't a cat very close physically to us? Why is that? Because God likes things that look and function similarly??

I fail to see how mental capabilities far beyond other animals means we didn't evolve like all the others.

 

[lokiju]

A fine example of Darwinism.



http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1798158&enterthread=y

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
Man has yet to create even a single cell life form out of non-living organisms.
>>>

its actually uninteresting whether "man" would ever be able to do this.

the much more interesting question would be....if there are circumstances like this LEFT ALONE....would life evolve ALWAYS and automatically ?
(Eg. early planets, circumstances right.)

THEN it *does* get philosophical....because in essense this would mean that "out of the nothing", throw some ingredients together, life is CREATED..and even more fascinated (as seen here on earth) always towards a consciousnes which is able to reflect on itself.
(Eg.."where are we coming from ? What is the universe ? etc...)

As an analogy.....its like i have certain elements in a computer program....and then i let it run for a certain time...and the elements form/tend towards getting conscious and start asking about their origins and purpose etc....

That first statement may not be entirely true.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Sci...-scratch/2005/08/26/1124563004159.html

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

First. When I was earlier speaking of transitional forms or proof thereof, I was speaking as to humans. I never denied evolution's existence at all.

Evolution -- REAL evolution -- includes humans. What you're talking about is a caricature. And again, how is this consistent with your original claim that the fossil record completely lacks transitional forms?

Quite the opposite actually. I was simply stating that although there is sufficient evidence to support that the humans that walked the earth a million years ago are somewhat different than ones today, there remains lack of any evidence that humans have evolved from any kind of single celled organism. Or somehow we are linked to the fishes of the sea. THAT'S the argument I am trying to withhold. There is plent of evidence of OTHER creatures completely evolving from one creature to another totally different creature. But not for humans.

This is simple ignorance on your part. It is a fact that we can reliably infer relatedness via gentic comparison. It is also a fact that genetic (and morphological) comparisons among all biological organisms (including humans) create what is called a "nested hierarchy" of similarities. The nested hierarchy is only explainable through the common descent of all biological organisms from an earlier common anscestor. Humans are no exception.

Second. OK so it's been a decade since I was in college and couldnt whip up EVERYTHING off the top of my head. But...I didnt steal Dr. Yaha's material, I was simply using his findings to support my side.

You literally copied his words and offered them as though they were your own. That's plagiarism.

Bah ok I didnt link the source. So sorry. But it doesnt change my side of the argument. OK so he's a muslim and therefore denies the holocaust...so what?

There's nothing inherent in Islam that requires one to deny the Holocaust. Harun Yayha doesn't deny the Holocaust because he's a muslim. He denies it because he's totally out of touch with reality. He's a crack-pot.

It doesnt negate any of the findings in his studies. Not at all.

Aside from the fact that his quackery is so blatant as to cast suspicion on any claim the man makes, it is irrelevant because the facts refute him in this instance anyway. The chimpanzee genome has been mapped -- despite his erroneous claim. Genetic comparisons of both complete genomes reveal exactly what was predicted: 99% gentic similarity.

I'm sure there are a few points I think Stephen Hawking is off his rocker (no pun intended) on, but that doesnt negate his findings and studies in space research. Does it?

Stephen Hawking has the advantage of having gotten some signficant facts CORRECT, and does not have a history of touting claims as though they were true when they are demonstrably false. Forgive me that I don't give your Holocaust denier the same credit.

Lastly, to answer your earlier question, the missing link I am lokking for is a transitional being. Transitional between human and whatever it is you think we were before we were humans. As previously stated by be (info again pulled from another science site coz I had forgotten the facts but not the info) the Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional creature. Well documented. Thats all. Just something that shows us evolving from whatever it is we were before we were humans.

You simply don't understand. To begin with, "human" isn't really a rigorous biological designation. Rather, "hominid" is more accurate. For a convenient illustration of transitional fossils hominids, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

More importantly, like I already explained to you earlier, when one properly understands evolution, it becomes clear that literally EVERY organism is "transitional." I suspect you're pulling the old "Gish Gallop," i.e. demanding the production of an intermediate form, yet when one is provided for you, you'll simply re-align your objection to note the TWO NEW GAPS created between the two given fossils and the intermediate between them.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in chasing your goalposts around as you look for ways to convince yourself that your plain denial of the facts is somehow justifiable.

-Garth

 

[imported_Skold]

Evolutionary theory is just another form of science fiction created by atheists.

 

[meltdown75]

Lets talk about Evolution.

Let's not and say we did.

 

[blackangst1]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in chasing your goalposts around as you look for ways to convince yourself that your plain denial of the facts is somehow justifiable.

Thats fine. The fact is, the so-called proof is subjective at best. We can both look at the same "evidence" with one of us saying "See! That's my proof!" While the other interprets it differently and says "See! It's all false!" You and I both know thats how alot of science is. Certainly not all of it, but certainly a significant portion of it. Case in point Dr Yayha. You say he's a crackpot I say his work in genetics is legitimate. You can then go online and find a group of scientists who support your view, and I can do the same. You say I pull the ol' "Gish Gallop", yet I find it a valid argument. *shrug* Both of us can debate this ad nauseum, and never convince the other.


The "nested hierarchy" argument is an interesting one indeed. However, this is where I will admit my bias. Obviously I am a Creationist (or "intelligent design" as that seems to be the politically correct term). Does that mean I cant be convinced otherwise? Nah not really. I have actually changed my opinion based on science on many things, including abortion and capital punishment...but thats another thread.

Unless I mistake the evolution theory, man, or hominid more properly defined, somehow evolved from something other than a bipod upright walking creature. THAT is where I am looking for a link. I propose we have always BEEN this way. I know it is not that cut and dried, but I think you get my drift. The previous example I gave of a transitional creature is a good example of a creature making the transition from one creature to an entirely different one.

Do I think that somehow humans are exempt from evolution the way other creatures are? Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Thats how creationists think. We dont think humans are "just another animal on the block" and I admit that.

Anyhow, I think this is where we part ways and agree to disagree. We both have given our "evidence" and refuted it, and we have differant opinions. Bad? Nah. I love these debates tho. I always learn something new...which seperates us from the apes I suppose...

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Why is it that everyone who starts these dumbass threads has never taken a biology class, or passed it?

This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with evolution. Evolution was started as a purely metaphysical theory, as is evident when Darwin says things like:

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars."

Having a degree in theology, his inspiration for the theory of evolution was metaphysical in nature. Perhaps this is why an anti-Theistic society accepted this theory so readily, while most genuine scientific theories take many years to become common knowledge.

Most biology books, after explaining genetic movement within species (microevolution), go on to claim that it is believed that such movements, given enough time, will cause changes in species (macroevolution). Coming from a materialist/naturalist standpoint, this is what they must do. It is almost as if they preclude all statements with "Given that special creation is impossible...". But let's not forget that this statement is a metaphysical one. And metaphysics is not a subject in which biology teachers or textbook writers claim to have any expertise.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: shoRunner

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Originally posted by: shoRunner

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Well if we talk about adaptations, take this theory into play:

Africa is hot, dry, warm air. Why do Africans have big noses, big lips, dark skin? I'm sure that there weren't 2 species of humans, 1 white, 1 black. Whites are usually found in northern areas, with cold seasons and wetter air.

I think that a human once found habitat in the African areas, and as time passed by, they started to change. The sun made their skin darker and darker. The air is so dry that your nosdrills have to open up to get more air in. Lips become bigger because of the immense heat. It all makes sense.

also darker skin absorbs heat and would make them hotter, so why not develope lighter skin with more resistance to sunburn, and bigger lips because of immense heat WTF?? wouldn't darker skin be of use in northern areas to make better use of the absorbing the suns light into heat.

Well obviously not.

Why are African people not so hairy either? They have allmost no hair on their legs, because its not so cold! They also get ashy on their joints and elbows, another fact that supports the theory.

obviously not what?

most asian people aren't very hairy and and many parts of china and japan are very cold, but african's peoples hair is very dense and i would think it would be very good and insulation if allowed to grow, but i really don't think any human's hair is of any use for insulation purposes.

I'm bald and my head is cold as fsck.