NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, according the the National Geographic Magazine, No. he wasn't.

Before you go running off screaming that Darwin was a heretic or that evolution is just a theory and thats it and can't be proven, read some of this.

First off, Darwin wasn't a heretic, all of his findings were in accordance with the Church beliefs at the time. He never said humans came from monkeys, he merely presented the fact that within a species, changes can occur to the bodily form of that species so they are better suited to their natural habitat. This became known as natural selection, i.e. the strongest survive.

Darwin, after years of thought where he argued both for and against his ideas, decided to push them forward. He published the Origin of Species as we know it.

After its publishing, Darwin began his idea of evolution of a species. He began to develop his now *controversial* ideas that multiple species can evolve out of one. So, at leat go to your local Barnes and Noble, Borders, Bookstar, or what ever book store you have and pick up the November '04 issue and read the Darwin article.

This does not preclude creationism, but it does exclude the fact that God put everything right here as it is now.

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check.

If you agree that:

1. Certain characteristics can give some living things an advantage over others in nature.

2. These advantages will grant the things that possess them to have a higher probability of survival.

3. That small changes over short periods of time will accumulate into huge changes over long periods of time.

Then you agree with evolution.

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check.

I personally believe the evolutionary development of empathy is the final trait to be developed.

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check.
2 things

1 lack of time ... 10 k years not nearly long enough

2 removal of environment as a stress factor ... what percentage of people die from natural things like getting eaten or freezing to death compared to 10 k years ago or more? I mean evolution is pushed through natural selection ... if we drastically reduce death due to environmental causes we reduce the “weeding” out process

No longer do the genes “die out” before they have a chance to breed and make more like themselves

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check.

you are an idiot

1. no evolution of a complex creature can occur in the 6000 years of human civilization, so it especially wont appear to happen in your life

2. We cant help but evolve, its not a volountary process, ie. the individual doesnt evolve, the species as a whole does

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check.
Thats because instead of adapting to nature, we change it to our needs.....

If you agree that:

1. Certain characteristics can give some living things an advantage over others in nature.

2. These advantages will grant the things that possess them to have a higher probability of survival.

3. That small changes over short periods of time will accumulate into huge changes over long periods of time.

Then you agree with evolution.

I tend to agree with evolution.

1. Yes, shown by Darwin's finches.
2. If you can eat, you can live. If you live you can reporduce.
3. I.E. the theory of multiple species out of one.

you are an idiot

1. no evolution of a complex creature can occur in the 6000 years of human civilization, so it especially wont appear to happen in your life

2. We cant help but evolve, its not a volountary process, ie. the individual doesnt evolve, the species as a whole does

And you obviously have not evolved a sense of humor...

you are an idiot

1. no evolution of a complex creature can occur in the 6000 years of human civilization, so it especially wont appear to happen in your life

2. We cant help but evolve, its not a volountary process, ie. the individual doesnt evolve, the species as a whole does

you seem to be a bit of a moron yourself. regardless of whether we "choose" to evolve, he's saying we're not. i'm sure he was basing his claim on principle too, rather than what he's observed.

i should also like to point out that individuals do evolve, according to that wacky theory of phenotypic plasticity. this idea is critical in evaluating the plausibility of evolution, but people seem to ignore it...

And you obviously have not evolved a sense of humor...
well how can you seperate a religous nut talk from sarcasm on a message board? :confused:

Well his germicle genes migrating to various parts of the body thing was apparently off-base.

I personally believe the evolutionary development of empathy is the final trait to be developed.

Do you mean empathy in the most extreme sense of the word? That'd be interesting, provided the entire population managed to develop it. Otherwise, it could be a bit traumatizing.

well how can you seperate a religous nut talk from sarcasm on a message board? :confused:
don't try, its too hard. Just laugh at everyone.

Thats because instead of adapting to nature, we change it to our needs.....

I agree with this statement 100%
the human race is exactly like a virus
we change and destroy the world for our own pleasure
bah. Theres no real enviromental problem you enviro nut. Animals can adapt to OUR needs, instead of us adapting to them, survival of the fittest.

Humor translates poorly over the internet, as any person with an IQ over 95 knows.

And someone saying we're 'not evolving' is like a blind person saying that an apple is blue - they can't really get it, so they end up making statements that are completely inane.

There is no such thing as 'deevolution'. Any change, for better or worse, is still that - a change.

Intelligence is at least partially biological - and all things considered, I'm wondering if everyone with an IQ of 120 or better shouldn't go off to some island somewhere and exclude ourselves from the general population.

you seem to be a bit of a moron yourself. regardless of whether we "choose" to evolve, he's saying we're not. i'm sure he was basing his claim on principle too, rather than what he's observed.


ya, its an idiotic principal

Thats because instead of adapting to nature, we change it to our needs.....

i agree with this statement 100%
the human race is a virus of this earth
we destroy and change everything for our own personal pleasures

No, no, no, this isn't the way this is supposed to work at all. See, when someone starts a thread titled "Evolution is Wrong," you don't go and start a thread titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" You start one titled "Jesus is Wrong."

"Oh, Yeah?"
"No, you shut up"
or
"Your Mother"

would also have been acceptable.

i agree with this statement 100%
the human race is a virus of this earth
we destroy and change everything for our own personal pleasures
bah. Theres no real enviromental problem you enviromentalist nut job. Animals can adapt to OUR needs, instead of us adapting to them, survival of the fittest.

I'm wondering if everyone with an IQ of 120 or better shouldn't go off to some island somewhere and exclude ourselves from the general population.

Let's do it. You and me will be the first ones to start up the island.

bah. Theres no real enviromental problem you enviromentalist nut job. Animals can adapt to OUR needs, instead of us adapting to them, survival of the fittest.

We may have transcended the 'survival of the fittest' system, but that doesn't mean we don't still have an impact upon nature. There's nothing enviro-nutty about saying so.

Do you mean empathy in the most extreme sense of the word? That'd be interesting, provided the entire population managed to develop it. Otherwise, it could be a bit traumatizing.

I mean the only definition of the word, being able to understand the feelings and thoughts of another. It doesn't completely destroy the effects of natural selection, but it causes the species to fight it quite strongly.

Let's do it. You and me will be the first ones to start up the island.

Clinton's in Mensa. Think he'd go for it? XD Adulterer != bad president.

bah. Theres no real enviromental problem you enviro nut. Animals can adapt to OUR needs, instead of us adapting to them, survival of the fittest.

not just the animals we are killing the planet and i promise you that we will kill ourselves in 300 years if things dont change

there is a serious envirionmental problem
500 years ago did you ever hear of aids? cancer? STD's?
rarely at best do you think this is purly coincidental?

Intelligence is at least partially biological - and all things considered, I'm wondering if everyone with an IQ of 120 or better shouldn't go off to some island somewhere and exclude ourselves from the general population.

That wouldn't work because no women have an IQ that high. How would we reproduce?

We may have transcended the 'survival of the fittest' system, but that doesn't mean we don't still have an impact upon nature. There's nothing enviro-nutty about saying so.
of course we have an impact on nature, every animal has an impact on nature, but calling us a virus? If animals were in our shoes thye would do the same thing, animals dont share with different animals, they grab as much as they can in order to survive.

not just the animals we are killing the planet and i promise you that we will kill ourselves in 300 years if things dont change

there is a serious envirionmental problem
500 years ago did you ever hear of aids? cancer? STD's?
rarely at best do you think this is purly coincidental?

I know for a fact that cancer and STDs existed back in the day. It's not something that was just 'cooked up'. Go watch 'Elizabeth'. I'd put money that Queen Mary (I'm sure her name was Mary, but the British Monarchy isn't my forte) had uterine cancer.

That wouldn't work because no women have an IQ that high. How would we reproduce?

I hope for your sake that that was humor. My mom is an accountant and nearly Mensa material. *glare*

not just the animals we are killing the planet and i promise you that we will kill ourselves in 300 years if things dont change

there is a serious envirionmental problem
500 years ago did you ever hear of aids? cancer? STD's?
rarely at best do you think this is purly coincidental?

in the past i distinctly remember of the black death, small pox, and measles...

but you're right, the romans didn't have STD's.

and we are having a major crisis!

We may have transcended the 'survival of the fittest' system, but that doesn't mean we don't still have an impact upon nature. There's nothing enviro-nutty about saying so.

we havent transcended survival of the fittest, we have just changed where we get the sustinance for survival from and the methods of getting it

if someone is not fit to survive however, they normally dont

not just the animals we are killing the planet and i promise you that we will kill ourselves in 300 years if things dont change

there is a serious envirionmental problem
500 years ago did you ever hear of aids? cancer? STD's?
rarely at best do you think this is purly coincidental?
we didnt have a population of 6 billion, and most people were illiterate 500 years ago, with no great means of transportation, and they had the black plague. So of course we don't hear things like that, Aids is relatively new, but cancer and STD's have been around forever.

I mean the only definition of the word, being able to understand the feelings and thoughts of another. It doesn't completely destroy the effects of natural selection, but it causes the species to fight it quite strongly.

Oh good, you're not talking about empathy like some weirdo counselor or shrink.

but you're right, the romans didn't have STD's.
Correction: They had no historically reported cases of STDs. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be remembered for raging herpes, or things like that.

I hope for your sake that that was humor. My mom is an accountant and nearly Mensa material. *glare*

Nope, your mom is obviously a man in drag.

Man, that issue of the National Geographic made me laugh so hard. I was seriously cracking up. Full front cover covered in the question "Was Darwin Wrong?", then when you turn to the article it's prefaced by a 2 page spread asking the same question. Then you turn the page to the actual article, and the top half of the first page just says NO in giant lettering. Classic.

I think a lot of the posters on both sides of the evolution arguement should read that article, because hardly anybody around here seems to actually know what the fuck they're talking about. It does a very good job explaining the principles of and evidence for(which is overwhelming) evolution.

we havent transcended survival of the fittest, we have just changed where we get the sustinance for survival from and the methods of getting it

if someone is not fit to survive however, they normally dont

There is no such thing as 'not fit to survive' unless the person is so severely mentally handicapped that they can't function without aid.

Nope, your mom is obviously a man in drag.
*eyeroll* You know, trolling is a Deadly Sin.

Correction: They had no historically reported cases of STDs. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be remembered for raging herpes, or things like that.

i was being sarcastic, since the prevalence of STDs in the day was a major influence in the early saints' decisions to demonize sex.

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check. :p You go ahead, I think I'll hang out until the buffet opens.

*eyeroll* You know, trolling is a Deadly Sin.

So is cross-dressing and double-entry accounting.

You "mom" is screwed.

I hope for your sake that that was humor. My mom is an accountant and nearly Mensa material. *glare*
I would make a joke about your mom on an island full of nerds who never seen the opposite sex but you might take it seriously. :lol:

I would make a joke about your mom on an island full of nerds who never seen the opposite sex but you might take it seriously. :lol:

Actually, it might be welcomed. :P At least it's better than a juvenile questioning of her gender.

I think that with the recent invention of language, tools and science, evolution has turned to another aspect of our species. We are developing the collective knowledge of our species now, not our genes. Knowledge, too, is a tremendous factor for survival. And it evolves much faster.

That knowledge can be eradicated much more quickly is no argument contra. Highly adapted genes can be eradicated too by unexpected disasters (meteors, etc.)

-snip-
Well said.

Actually, it might be welcomed. :P At least it's better than a juvenile questioning of her gender.

Questioning?

I don't disagree with evolution as a force of nature, I do however disagree that evolution is the reason that most organisms exist on earth. for several reasons
1) Theres not enough time between the date when the first precursors to humans were supposed to have lived and now to account for the amount of change that has taken place
2) the bats/whales/other similiar examples; I mean seriously, think about it, echo location requires three seperate evolutions to acur simultaneuosly and practically instantaeneously (Both probably spelled wrong, meh) for echolocation bats had to evolve all of the ability to emit high frequency sounds at very short intervals, the ability to hear the echoes of these high frequency sounds, hte ability to interpert the echoes of these high frequency sounds while ndertaking a non constant movement (flying), whales and porpoises had to evolve similiar sets of traits and I don't believe it would happe 'at random' or 'by chance' as evolution technically is when it comes to combinations of traits like this.
3) humans; seriously, in a natural selection environment something o poorly suited to life as humans would never have evolved from anything, they're weaker than gorillas, slower and less agile than chimps, slower AND weaker than orangutans and lacking in the physical traits that allow them to climb trees and swing from tres and vines and such that orangutans have, they have no natural defense or camoflage and they possess very little in the way of instincts for preservation of the species.

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check.

Everything evolves. Evolution is gradual, and takes millions of years to create an absolutly new species. Are we evolving now? As far as studies have shown, yes. Someone who flips through a history text book and examines every one they know cannot tell you for sure whether we are evlovling or not. Don't believe me? A group of scientists had studied records, mummys, ancient artistry and books, and they have concluded that our smallest toe (on both feet) has been decreaing in size ever so slowly. Many mummies uncovered by arceologists have shown that the time between us and them (about 2300 years or so) was enough time fo our smallest toe to shrink 0.5 mm. It doen't seem like alot, but millions (maybe billions) of years from now, we'll only have 8 toes total (if we're still around). Samething with the blonde thoery. WE're de-blonding ourselves.

well, humans do have some genetic advantages to our monkey brothers. For instance, the decrease in our weight and general stature has allowed us to become much better runners. In fact, humans are the best suited long distance runners on the planet which could have been important in hunting game or protection. Also, our big brains and tool making skills do make up for alot, though not of course for the fact that we dont have thumbs on our feet. :( It is strange that we could go through so much change so quickly, but at the same time, how much did we help it along through developing new tools and so on which changed our relationship with our environment rather than our environment being in charge of the change?

oh, and yes. her mom might have issues, but i can tell you, i'm pretty sure I'M a woman.

ugggh I hate you people.
How do you not choke on your own tongues, in the middle of the night.
Why is it, that the people who always try to defend natrual selection, and evolution, would be the first ones gone if it ever came down to it.

I have this challange for you freaks, show me one substantial peice of evidence, to prove all this crap your talking. Worlds gonna end in 300 years? Prove it. Global warming? Prove it. Worthless animals dieing out? Who gives a crap. The real shame, is that your natural selection, is usually done by the strong killing the weak, what happens when the strong kill the weak?? The weak band together, and bother another strong person, to go stop the other strong person, what we should do, is force natural selection, wipe out all the little freaks running around driving electric hybrids. Yeah... theres too many people on the planet, your the ones always saying that anyway. If we get rid of all of you, pow!, no more problem.

Hey uh, post your addresses, I'll help nature out right now :sniper: :mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:

ugggh I hate you people.
How do you not choke on your own tongues, in the middle of the night.
Why is it, that the people who always try to defend natrual selection, and evolution, would be the first ones gone if it ever came down to it.

I have this challange for you freaks, show me one substantial peice of evidence, to prove all this crap your talking. Worlds gonna end in 300 years? Prove it. Global warming? Prove it. Worthless animals dieing out? Who gives a crap. The real shame, is that your natural selection, is usually done by the strong killing the weak, what happens when the strong kill the weak?? The weak band together, and bother another strong person, to go stop the other strong person, what we should do, is force natural selection, wipe out all the little freaks running around driving electric hybrids. Yeah... theres too many people on the planet, your the ones always saying that anyway. If we get rid of all of you, pow!, no more problem.

Hey uh, post your addresses, I'll help nature out right now :sniper: :mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:

You....are.....AWESOME

1) Theres not enough time between the date when the first precursors to humans were supposed to have lived and now to account for the amount of change that has taken place
Well, according to the bible not enough time. But on the time scale as scianece knows it, there have been several hundred million years for things to evolve to sui their envirnoment. During these hundreds of millions of years, the organisms followed natural selection - those that were best suited to the environemnt (by birth defect or other) reproduced, spreading their adaption. Those that didn't have the adaption died. Enough of this took place over a significantly long time to have lasting affects, what we know as evolution.

2) the bats/whales/other similiar examples; I mean seriously, think about it, echo location requires three seperate evolutions to acur simultaneuosly and practically instantaeneously (Both probably spelled wrong, meh) for echolocation bats had to evolve all of the ability to emit high frequency sounds at very short intervals, the ability to hear the echoes of these high frequency sounds, hte ability to interpert the echoes of these high frequency sounds while ndertaking a non constant movement (flying), whales and porpoises had to evolve similiar sets of traits and I don't believe it would happe 'at random' or 'by chance' as evolution technically is when it comes to combinations of traits like this.

They didn't need to have evolved all at the same time. Lets use the bats as an example. The bat develops the ability to emit supersonic frequencies - prbably through very tight vocal chords, and a small mouth. This was probably their form of communication. Then along comes a bat with larger than normal ears. It hears the echo-location signals better and is able to use them more efficiently than other bats. He reproduces and spreads his traits. Eventually, small-earned bats die off. Then, the bats develope the modern echo location system where they can 'see' the vibrations bouncing off of objects.

3) humans; seriously, in a natural selection environment something o poorly suited to life as humans would never have evolved from anything, they're weaker than gorillas, slower and less agile than chimps, slower AND weaker than orangutans and lacking in the physical traits that allow them to climb trees and swing from tres and vines and such that orangutans have, they have no natural defense or camoflage and they possess very little in the way of instincts for preservation of the species.

see Sarumonkikarukachiru's post.

ugggh I hate you people.
How do you not choke on your own tongues, in the middle of the night.
Why is it, that the people who always try to defend natrual selection, and evolution, would be the first ones gone if it ever came down to it.

I have this challange for you freaks, show me one substantial peice of evidence, to prove all this crap your talking. Worlds gonna end in 300 years? Prove it. Global warming? Prove it. Worthless animals dieing out? Who gives a crap. The real shame, is that your natural selection, is usually done by the strong killing the weak, what happens when the strong kill the weak?? The weak band together, and bother another strong person, to go stop the other strong person, what we should do, is force natural selection, wipe out all the little freaks running around driving electric hybrids. Yeah... theres too many people on the planet, your the ones always saying that anyway. If we get rid of all of you, pow!, no more problem.

Hey uh, post your addresses, I'll help nature out right now :sniper: :mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:


Looks like someone needs a :fluffle:

ugggh I hate you people.

The feeling's mutual.

How do you not choke on your own tongues, in the middle of the night.

Hmm. Beats me. That would be a pretty poor evolutionary strategy, though.

Why is it, that the people who always try to defend natrual selection, and evolution, would be the first ones gone if it ever came down to it.

As someone earlier on this thread pointed out, by allowing people to survive who would otherwise die, we are working contrary to natural selection (not evolution - we are just emphasising different traits). But I consider this to be a good thing and civilisation. Just because we accept that evolution exists, much like floods or famines, doesn't mean that we can't try to work against it.

And why is it that people who disbelieve evolution are always those who seem to have benefited least from it?

I have this challange for you freaks, show me one substantial peice of evidence, to prove all this crap your talking. Worlds gonna end in 300 years? Prove it. Global warming? Prove it.

Try reading a little and ranting a little less. The world's average temperature has increased by a degree in the past century. Global warming is a fact. Only the cause is disputed.

Worthless animals dieing out? Who gives a crap.

You might, if you develop an untreatable cancer that a compound in one of those species might have cured. Me, I'll be rubbing my hands in glee that there's one less fundamentalist wierdo in the world.

The real shame, is that your natural selection, is usually done by the strong killing the weak, what happens when the strong kill the weak?? The weak band together, and bother another strong person, to go stop the other strong person, what we should do, is force natural selection, wipe out all the little freaks running around driving electric hybrids. Yeah... theres too many people on the planet, your the ones always saying that anyway. If we get rid of all of you, pow!, no more problem.
Hey uh, post your addresses, I'll help nature out right now .

Bring it on, asswipe.

Grove Park, Camberwell, London.

Looks like someone needs a :fluffle:

I am worried about you UpwardThrust. I think you need to be more discerning with your fluffling or you might end up with a :fluffle: transmitted disease.

*a well deserved snip*

You are even more awesome.

I am worried about you UpwardThrust. I think you need to be more discerning with your fluffling or you might end up with a :fluffle: transmitted disease.
I cant help it ... hatefull idiots need more :fluffle: then even us normal people

I cant help it ... hatefull idiots need more :fluffle: then even us normal people

Well when your fluffler starts dripping, don't say I didn't warn you.

I don't disagree with evolution as a force of nature, I do however disagree that evolution is the reason that most organisms exist on earth. for several reasons
1) Theres not enough time between the date when the first precursors to humans were supposed to have lived and now to account for the amount of change that has taken place

How do you know that? The current estimate on the existence of first proto human is several million years ago. That's plenty of time if you ask me.

2) the bats/whales/other similiar examples; I mean seriously, think about it, echo location requires three seperate evolutions to acur simultaneuosly and practically instantaeneously (Both probably spelled wrong, meh) for echolocation bats had to evolve all of the ability to emit high frequency sounds at very short intervals, the ability to hear the echoes of these high frequency sounds, hte ability to interpert the echoes of these high frequency sounds while ndertaking a non constant movement (flying), whales and porpoises had to evolve similiar sets of traits and I don't believe it would happe 'at random' or 'by chance' as evolution technically is when it comes to combinations of traits like this.

That's the common mistake people make regarding evolution. You think a set of traits were developed specifically for the purpose that it currently serves. Nothing could be further from the truce. Example, bird's feather weren't evolved so they can fly, feathers evolved as a mean to better retain heat. The echo these animals used might originally have been used to call on each other. Then their hearings developed more to better locate other's calls. Then some of them had hearings sharp enough to hear their own call's echo. Eventually, some of them were able to figure our their environment from those echos. Viola, your echolocation system. Nothing here needs to be designed by an intelligent been. In fact, if you were to design an animal that flys out in the night to catch flys, would you have used an echolocation system? Wouldn't better eye sight be a better choice, or better yet, come out during day light?


3) humans; seriously, in a natural selection environment something o poorly suited to life as humans would never have evolved from anything, they're weaker than gorillas, slower and less agile than chimps, slower AND weaker than orangutans and lacking in the physical traits that allow them to climb trees and swing from tres and vines and such that orangutans have, they have no natural defense or camoflage and they possess very little in the way of instincts for preservation of the species.

You obviously forgot the most important trait we humans have over any other animals: Our Brains. Our brain power allows us to overcome any physical shortcoming that we have.

Well when your fluffler starts dripping, don't say I didn't warn you.
I think they got medicine for that sort of thing now


But it is green and requires remote application (e.g. :gundge: )

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

man you guys get off topic. Anywho, I am here to respectfully disagree with the question 'was darwin wrong'. It's so obvious he was right. Any religious nut *cough cough* CATHOLICS!! *cough* needs to prove their point with something other than the bible and their stupid faith. And anyone that just disagrees is blatantly wrong.

Humans stopped evolving because we no longer have any need to evolve! Look at us, we live like kings compared to animals. There's no longer any challenge facing us that causes us to change. Was there, we would see a gradual change, nothing quick. Nothing in this milennium, most likely. Animals are still changing, but it takes place so slowly that no one can tell, unlessyour a studying ecobiologist. And the process of extinction is made all the more rapid by our completely moronic use of resources.

Also, to all you religious nuts out there. I am an antheist and proud of it because i think all religion is a sham. If you've got a problem with that, you just show me some TANGIBLE evidence of God for once and maybe i'll shut up. Jesus doesn't count. Any loony could claim to be the son of God. And like Mary and Joseph never hooked up!

~Chizz~ :headbang:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

man you guys get off topic. Anywho, I am here to respectfully disagree with the question 'was darwin wrong'. It's so obvious he was right. Any religious nut *cough cough* CATHOLICS!! *cough* needs to prove their point with something other than the bible and their stupid faith. And anyone that just disagrees is blatantly wrong.

Humans stopped evolving because we no longer have any need to evolve! Look at us, we live like kings compared to animals. There's no longer any challenge facing us that causes us to change. Was there, we would see a gradual change, nothing quick. Nothing in this milennium, most likely. Animals are still changing, but it takes place so slowly that no one can tell, unlessyour a studying ecobiologist. And the process of extinction is made all the more rapid by our completely moronic use of resources.

Also, to all you religious nuts out there. I am an antheist and proud of it because i think all religion is a sham. If you've got a problem with that, you just show me some TANGIBLE evidence of God for once and maybe i'll shut up. Jesus doesn't count. Any loony could claim to be the son of God. And like Mary and Joseph never hooked up!

~Chizz~ :headbang:

I agree that all catholics are religious nuts and are loony.

And Mary and Joseph were like rabbits.




:rolleyes:

Not enough of an address fucktard, I'm not gonna go poking around that shit hole you call England, theres a reason we left it at the first chance we got. Can I just mail you a bomb? Or maybe you come over here to me.

Say I need a serum from one of those creatures? of course, experiments are never gonna be allowed on such creatures, so who gives a crap?

Golbel warming... HAH 1 degree in a century, the previous century, it was global cooling, cause it had dropped a degree or 2. Tempetures flucuate planet moves a little closer to the sun, sun flares up a little bit, planet drifts back away. 1 degree isnt enough to even be evidence.

Why is it, you assclowns, always tell me to go find my own evidence, I've looked, I havnt found any, show me some. I swear, this is like talking to a parret, government or media tells you somthing, you just spout it right out like its fact.

We need to work against evolution, only when it means that you dont get killed off. HAH

Drink bleach asshat Drink bleach (It's the new water!!! It's evolved!!!)

we didnt have a population of 6 billion, and most people were illiterate 500 years ago, with no great means of transportation, and they had the black plague. So of course we don't hear things like that, Aids is relatively new, but cancer and STD's have been around forever.


some of these deseases were around but not in the mass that we see today

my dear Chizzilla, i'm not going to argue religion with you cause nobody wants that. but i will say this, for someone who starts off complaining about getting off topic from evolution, that is an odd way to end a post in a religious, or rather, anti religious rant.

So you're the asshole using that fucking word.

That word sucks, and it makes you look like a moron.

You.... should of been shot into a napkin

So you're the asshole using that fucking word.

That word sucks, and it makes you look like a moron.
Dont rise to it man ... leave it alone

oh, and Teradokistan, agree with me on this. even if you dont do the evolution thing, even if you dont like the idea of global warming think about this. we are polluting the world. polluting the world kills cute animals. killing cute animals angers environmental nutjobs and environmental nutjobs can be pretty hulk-style pissy without their rare amazon fuzzy creatures.

oh, and Teradokistan, agree with me on this. even if you dont do the evolution thing, even if you dont like the idea of global warming think about this. we are polluting the world. polluting the world kills cute animals. killing cute animals angers environmental nutjobs and environmental nutjobs can be pretty hulk-style pissy without their rare amazon fuzzy creatures.

Sure.... I guess....

You.... should of been shot into a napkin

Now see I can handle that.

It's quite obvious to me that humans are no longer evolving. So we'll have to ask for the check.

actually we are, every generation has different small mutations that can be measured. These eventually add up to form a new type of species

Now see I can handle that.

Really???
I wouldnt handle that with rubber gloves, thats pretty foul.

The thing is, the first life on Earth was four billion years ago, not six thousand, as some religous people tend to think. If we didn't evo;ve- and I quote this from NG- why do males have nipples? Why do some snakes have rudimentaries of legs? Why are there species of beetles whose wings never open? Give me good answers to all those questions. Good answers, not ones like "Because God wanted it that way."

The thing is, the first life on Earth was four billion years ago, not six thousand, as some religous people tend to think. If we didn't evo;ve- and I quote this from NG- why do males have nipples? Why do some snakes have rudimentaries of legs? Why are there species of beetles whose wings never open? Give me good answers to all those questions. Good answers, not ones like "Because God wanted it that way."


Your missing the point, Creation has all the evidence it needs, were here, we cant explain it, hence, an all powerfull entity put us here. Kinda strange that every relegion has similar principals. "God gave us life, follow god, give the church your money"

Evolution lacks evidence, evolution is the new theory, it needs evidence to support it, requires the same beliefs that Creationism requires, and doesnt give the same perks.

Your missing the point, Creation has all the evidence it needs, were here, we cant explain it, hence, an all powerfull entity put us here. Kinda strange that every relegion has similar principals. "God gave us life, follow god, give the church your money"

Evolution lacks evidence, evolution is the new theory, it needs evidence to support it, requires the same beliefs that Creationism requires, and doesnt give the same perks.

Now see, there are tremendous amounts of fossil records supporting evolution, even logical deduction supports evolution.

Now see, there are tremendous amounts of fossil records supporting evolution, even logical deduction supports evolution.

Damn it, Parrets again..

NAME ONE

Damn it, Parrets again..

NAME ONE

The neanderthal man, which actually was a whole separate species of human that lived at the same time as homo sapiens.

There are many others, Lucy comes to mind, but I don't have the technical knowledge, someone help me out.

As for the logical deduction:

1. Every ecosystem has a limited amount of resources.
2. The inhabitants of the ecosystem will reproduce instinctively and continually.
3. If the inhabitants of the ecosystem reproduce continually they will eventually reach the limits of the ecosystem.
4. If the limits of the ecosystem are reached, then the inhabitants of the ecosystem must compete for the resources in order to continue reproduction.
5. Genetic material creates individual characteristics in the inhabitants.
6. Individual characteristics exist that provide advantages for one inhabitant over another.
7. Inhabitants possessing advantages will be able to obtain the resources of an ecosystem, and will be successful in reproduction.
8. Inhabitants that do not possess said advantages will be less successful in obtaining resources and less successful at reproduction.
9. Inhabitants possessing advantages will reproduce at a higher rate than ones that do not.
10. Over time, the increased reproduction of the inhabitants with advantages will lead to a greater population of inhabitants that possess said characteristics.
11. Over time, the decreased reproduction of the inhabitants without the advantages will lead to a smaller population of inhabitants that do not possess the advantageous characteristics.
12. The population will shift towards a majority of inhabitants possessing the advantageous characteristic.
13. Weather changes and migration will cause pronounced changes amongst a species.
14. Over large amounts of time, subtle changes can become enormous ones.

The neanderthal man, which actually was a whole separate species of human that lived at the same time as homo sapiens.

There are many others, Lucy comes to mind, but I don't have the technical knowledge, someone help me out.

Over 300 Neanderthal specimens have now been found scattered throughout most of the world, including Belgium, China, Central and North Africa, Iraq, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Greece, north western Europe and the Middle East. This race of men was characterized by prominent eyebrow ridges (like modern Australian aborigines), low forehead, long narrow skull, a protruding upper jaw, and a strong lower jaw with a short chin. They were deep-chested, large-boned individuals with a powerful build. It should be emphasized, however, that none of these features fall outside the range of normal human anatomy. Interestingly, the brain size (based on cranial capacity) of Neanderthal man was actually larger than average for that of modern man, though this is rarely emphasized. Anthropologists have long attempted to correlate brain size with intelligence and some have even biased their measurements of cranial capacity in an apparent effort to down-grade the intelligence of "less favored" races, such as blacks and Indians (see The Mismeasure of Man by evolutionist Steven J. Gould, W. W. Norton & Company, 1981). There is, in fact, a broad range of variation in brain size among normal humans, but there is no known relationship between mere brain size and intelligence.


“Lucy” is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans, thus supposedly proving evolution.

But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.




Conclusion:
Neanderthal Man; Within the bound of genetic diversity for modern humans.
Lucy; Such an incomplete fossil, theres no way to know anything from it.


Keep em coming, I can shoot down anything you can throw at me.

Intermediate fossils include:

* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Ma). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more human-like teeth. Most (all?) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

# Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Ma); its brain size, 420 to 500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more human-like.

# Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Ma), which is similar to Australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650 cc average) and less projecting face.

Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Ma); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1350 cc.)

There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes.

* Humans have 23 chromosome pairs; apes have 24. 22 of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2). [Yunis and Prakash 1982]

* The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined. [IJdo et al. 1991]

* A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome. [Avarello et al. 1992]

* Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses). [Lilith 2003; Max 2003]

(Information from talkorigins.org )

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.


The current theory of human evolution states that modern humans evolved from more primitive bipedal hominids. The first bipedal hominid genus that is supposedly the ancestor of modern humans is Australopithecus, which appeared in the fossil record from about 4.4 to 1 million years ago throughout eastern Africa. Australopithecus comprised a diverse group of small-brained bipedal species that were confined to the savannas of Africa. This genus was supposed to have evolved into the genus Homo, which has been defined as bipedal primates with a brain capacity over 700 cc, having appeared in the fossil record by about 2 million years ago as Homo habilis in eastern Africa. According to theory, Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, which had a brain capacity just over 1000 cc, appearing in the fossil record from about 1.5 million to 300 thousand years ago. Homo neandertalensis lived between 400 and 28 thousand years ago. Archaic Homo sapiens appeared 400 - 150 thousand years ago, and modern Homo sapiens from less than 100 thousand years ago. Contrary to the claims of many creationists, there is ample evidence for the existence of human-like species of bipedal primates. The dates and ages of these fossils are not widely disputed in scientific circles. The reality of the fossil record and the reliability of the dates of these fossils is actually instrumental in disproving the descent of man theory. If the fossil record were not as complete as it now is, the standard evolutionist argument would apply, "we just haven't found the missing link ancestor of modern humans yet."

As evolutionists studied humans and species of apes in the 1970's and 1980's, some rather surprising information was being discovered that distinguished us from apes and other primates. The maximum Fst value (a measure of variation between population groups) between human races is 0.08 (1, 2). However, among populations of chimps, orangutans, and other primate species, Fst values are commonly more than 0.20. An examination of 62 common protein coding genetic loci, indicates a substitution rate of 0.011/locus (Caucasoids versus Mongoloids), to a maximum of 0.029 (Mongoloids versus Negroids). However, in nearly all other animal species studied, including apes, usually exceed 0.05 (2). In humans, heterozygosity (the proportion of alleles that are polymorphic, in this case within the species) is 1.8% , whereas in apes it ranges from 2.5 in the Orangutan to 3.9 in the Chimpanzee (3). An analysis of the genetics of populations of apes reveals that different population groups possess fixed novel mutations that characterize each population. In contrast, there are no novel mutations or genetic alleles that specifically characterize any one human race from another. More recent studies have confirmed the early work, likewise showing that human genetic diversity is far less than what one would predict from Darwinian theory. Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) has noted, "It's a mystery none of us can explain." (4). Examinations of the genetic sequences of diverse modern human populations reveals minor, if any differences (5). All of this evidence suggested a recent origin for modern humans.

mtDNA Sequence Variation (%) Within Species (31) Population Individuals Mean Minimum Maximum s.d.
Neanderthals 0,003 03.73 - - -
Humans 5,530 03.43 0.00 10.16 1.21
Chimpanzees 0,359 14.81 0.00 29.06 5.70
Gorillas 0,028 18.57 0.40 28.79 5.26

Now I don't much about the Homo genus but as for Neanderthals:

First of all you ignore the extent of the differences. When you say short chin what you are refering to is the complete lack of a "chin" as it is classified today, something every human has.

Secondly, you forgot an important feature, the occipital bun. How many humans do you know with one of those.

Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.


You seem to be implying that there is a clear divide between what is human and what is not.

But the divide is fictional.

Creationists were shown skulls of so-called transitional forms. All claimed that none of them were transitional forms; that they were either clearly human or clearly ape.

But they weren't able to agree which is which!

Table of what is an ape and what is a human, according to whom, is found here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)

It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.

Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case.

The fossil record shows that
at time a, only apes existed.
at time b, there existed an ape with some humanoid features.
at time c, there existed a human with some apelike features.
at time d, there exist modern humans.

That's evolution right there.


The current theory of human evolution states that modern humans evolved from more primitive bipedal hominids. The first bipedal hominid genus that is supposedly the ancestor of modern humans is Australopithecus, which appeared in the fossil record from about 4.4 to 1 million years ago throughout eastern Africa. Australopithecus comprised a diverse group of small-brained bipedal species that were confined to the savannas of Africa. This genus was supposed to have evolved into the genus Homo, which has been defined as bipedal primates with a brain capacity over 700 cc, having appeared in the fossil record by about 2 million years ago as Homo habilis in eastern Africa. According to theory, Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, which had a brain capacity just over 1000 cc, appearing in the fossil record from about 1.5 million to 300 thousand years ago. Homo neandertalensis lived between 400 and 28 thousand years ago. Archaic Homo sapiens appeared 400 - 150 thousand years ago, and modern Homo sapiens from less than 100 thousand years ago. Contrary to the claims of many creationists, there is ample evidence for the existence of human-like species of bipedal primates. The dates and ages of these fossils are not widely disputed in scientific circles. The reality of the fossil record and the reliability of the dates of these fossils is actually instrumental in disproving the descent of man theory. If the fossil record were not as complete as it now is, the standard evolutionist argument would apply, "we just haven't found the missing link ancestor of modern humans yet."

What do you mean by "the missing link?" We've found plenty of fossils that are apes with hominid features, or humans with apelike features, to the point where people can't even tell whether fossils are one or the other. How does that "disprove" evolution? That's exactly what we'd expect!


As evolutionists studied humans and species of apes in the 1970's and 1980's, some rather surprising information was being discovered that distinguished us from apes and other primates. The maximum Fst value (a measure of variation between population groups) between human races is 0.08 (1, 2). However, among populations of chimps, orangutans, and other primate species, Fst values are commonly more than 0.20. An examination of 62 common protein coding genetic loci, indicates a substitution rate of 0.011/locus (Caucasoids versus Mongoloids), to a maximum of 0.029 (Mongoloids versus Negroids). However, in nearly all other animal species studied, including apes, usually exceed 0.05 (2). In humans, heterozygosity (the proportion of alleles that are polymorphic, in this case within the species) is 1.8% , whereas in apes it ranges from 2.5 in the Orangutan to 3.9 in the Chimpanzee (3). An analysis of the genetics of populations of apes reveals that different population groups possess fixed novel mutations that characterize each population. In contrast, there are no novel mutations or genetic alleles that specifically characterize any one human race from another. More recent studies have confirmed the early work, likewise showing that human genetic diversity is far less than what one would predict from Darwinian theory. Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) has noted, "It's a mystery none of us can explain." (4). Examinations of the genetic sequences of diverse modern human populations reveals minor, if any differences (5). All of this evidence suggested a recent origin for modern humans.

Yep, they only diverged from apes about five million years ago. And the different populations only differentiated from each other even more recently. I'm not sure wherein your point lies.

Okay, even if you want to ignore humanoid evolution and dispute the ape to human chain, look to mamalian evolution, it can prove itself there.

The first object is the obvious: Darwin's finches. although this is usually claimed as a better defense for natual selection, it can be used to defend evolution as a theory on whole. The finches came from seven different Islands and were completely unremarkable except for the different shapes and sizes of their beaks. When Darwin observed the finches, he noted their beaks, body size, mass, structual build, and origin.

The result were that each 'new' finch came from one basic form of species. What had happened over time was the development of natural selection to accomidate for the varied food sources found on the Islands. Each bird had developed a bak suited to the food found on the Island.

In Galaphagos tortises, a similar development was found. the tortises had changed the base form of the tortise to more suit the climes of the Island. As we see them now, the Galaphagos tortises have developed massive shells. They moev very slowly but they are able to defend themselves quite readily. Their adaptation allowed for them to grow these shells to defend themselves from their natural predators on the Island.

In London during the industrial evolution, there were two different types of moths. White moths and Black moths. Both moths lived on white trees. The nearby birds were able to see the black moths more easily and eat them, the white moths thrived. Then, the industrial revolution came and factories started to pour smoke into the air. The trees began to take on a dark coloration. The result - the white moths were more easily seen and the dark moths began to thrive. what was interesting about this was that both moths were the same species, they were just variations within the species. From this, we can easily deduce natural selection and survival of the fittest but to take it a step further and continue the black moths survival would mean that out of two varitaions, one survived and became the species of moth. Evolution.

I read that article. While I found it to be scientifically sound, the author should be fired. He editorialized the whole article, and seemed to be rubbing this fact into the face of those that oppose it on religious grounds. It disgusted me.

I read that article. While I found it to be scientifically sound, the author should be fired. He editorialized the whole article, and seemed to be rubbing this fact into the face of those that oppose it on religious grounds. It disgusted me.

Yeah, he kinda did. The big NO on the first page sorta started the whole thing off, then it went from there. It was still a good article though.

ugggh I hate you people.
How do you not choke on your own tongues, in the middle of the night.
Why is it, that the people who always try to defend natrual selection, and evolution, would be the first ones gone if it ever came down to it.

I have this challange for you freaks, show me one substantial peice of evidence, to prove all this crap your talking. Worlds gonna end in 300 years? Prove it. Global warming? Prove it. Worthless animals dieing out? Who gives a crap. The real shame, is that your natural selection, is usually done by the strong killing the weak, what happens when the strong kill the weak?? The weak band together, and bother another strong person, to go stop the other strong person, what we should do, is force natural selection, wipe out all the little freaks running around driving electric hybrids. Yeah... theres too many people on the planet, your the ones always saying that anyway. If we get rid of all of you, pow!, no more problem.

Hey uh, post your addresses, I'll help nature out right now :sniper: :mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:

wow, you are totally batshit insane. there are many HARD FACTS that support evolution. One of these is the evolution of an extra red blood cell for people living in Bolivia because they need more oxygen. there. a specific example of evolution. second. global warming: there is now proof that the northern ice caps are starting to break up. again, hard evidence. Natural selection, the strong kill out the weak. this is what keeps all of the people who want to turn animals into oil argue *for*. "screw it, we're stronger than these things, who gives a shit if we kill out an entire species because we can, its natural selection!"

this whole idea is stupid. that hippies are the only ones that want to see a future with grass and trees. that's stupid. You'd think that seeing as most of the people who want to destroy the enviroment are die-hard republicans, that whole morality and values about life bullshit would extend beyond a petri dish.

I'm just throwing this in here, haven't really cared to read all the bashing going around.

I'm a Creationist. Oh my God, an omen among us. Yeah yeah yeah.

When I get into a big (logical) debate about evolution/creation, I'm always asked whether I'm a young-earth creationist or an old-earth creationist. I always respond with, "I don't care." I get the funniest looks. And frankly, I don't care. The way I see it, it doesn't really matter. From the research I've done, I don't believe man had time enough to evolve from a single-celled organism (formed by abiogenesis) even if the world is roughly five billion years old. Or five hundred million. Whatever. I simply don't believe there was ever enough time for one single celled organism to form randomly, and over the course of time slowly, gradually evolve into approximately 2.3 million different species of animals around the world, not to mention plants, and definitely not to mention the most complex being in the world (universe?), humans.

I believe there was a Divine Creator due to the actual complexity of life. What is life? You can't bottle it up. Sure, we can "jump start" it with a defribilator, but an electrical shock is not life. Truth is, no one really knows what "life" actually is. It's just a state of being, I guess. But how do you make it? Can you make it? Can man just find a piece of plastic and insert "life" into it? No, it's silly to think so. Humans cannot grasp what life is. Yes, we can clone fetuses. But they originally came from another living organism. But where does life come from? How do we get it? I cannot believe that life just spurted out of a lightning bolt one day into a pool of chemicals and created "life".

I believe in an Ultimate Creator because scientists have found, whilst investigating DNA, that the chains, matches, etc., are so complex, only an Intelligent Designer could have created them. Leading atheist evolutionist Dr. Antony Flew recently came to grips that, after teaching evolution and the nonexistence of God, only an Intelligent Being could have been involved in the creation of everything. Quoting an article from Associated Press:

"There was no one moment of change but a conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA 'has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence musy have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?""

Flew has been a leading atheist evolutionist for over frive decades, and just now, at the age of 81, has concluded that there must be intelligence behind the whole deal. Sure, he doesn't believe in an afterlife or a omnicient God, but he does believe an Intelligent Designer created it all. Works for me.

I can't really, scientifically speaking, take the model of The Evolution of Man seriously. Let's see...

Lucy: Now regarded by nearly all experts to be a 3ft tall Chimpanzee.

Heidelberg Man: Built from a jawbone conceded by many to be "quite human".

Nebraska Man: Built from a single tooth, later found to be from an extinct species of pig.

Piltdown Man: Built from a jawbone, later found to be from a modern ape.

Peking Man: Supposedly estimated to be 500,000 years old, but any and all true evidence of this has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man: At the International Congress of Zoology in 1958, Dr. A. J. E. Cave presented his examination and found that this famous skeleton found in France over 50 years prior was actually that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

New Guinea Man: Dates back to a wopping 1970. Go pick one up just north of Australia.

Cro-Magnon Man: One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man. No true evolutionary differences exist.

Modern Man: Currently in existence around the world today.

However, I'm tired of people saying "Evolution is totally false." Bullcrap. Evolution is a proven fact, people. Microevolution, that is. We're losing hair earlier due to the artificial environment we've created for ourselves. Way to go, Central Heat and Air. We're taller than when we were a hundred years ago. Not really sure on the explanation there, somebody else can find that one. However, Macroevolution is another story.

Darwin had a great thing going when he was talking about Survival of the Fittest. True blue, tried and tested, scientific genius there, buddy. Much props on that one. However, to say that there is scientific evidence pointing that man and ape are evolutionarily kin is simply absurd. Many of the "new" and uninformed evolutionists would bring up something along the lines that apes and humans look almost exactly the same, or that cat embyos look just like human embyos, and therefore proves that they are related. Sorry, this is the myth of homology. Saying that just because two things look alike that they are related is not scientific. My $20 watch from Wal-Mart looks just like a $4000 Rolex. So? Or what about the fact that humans and apes share a huge likeness in DNA? Like, 98%, right? Wrong. Recent studies have found that gap to be more like a difference of up to 15%. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030712b6.htm) Of course, humans also share a good percentage of their DNA with pigs. Note that while even 2% of DNA may sound small, it is still a huge amount of information, and there is always a relationship between living things and their DNA. Humans share a percentage of their DNA with yeast. Yes, yeast is my uncle. BLARGistania brought up the Darwin Finches. Yes, the have differently shaped beaks. Dogs have differently shaped noses. Haha, just playing. Sure, I'll accept that as evolution. Micro. Tortoises? Micro. Moths? Micro. Although there is recent speculation on the validity of the Peppered Moth story, as many experts, both creationist and evolutionist, are beginning to come to the realization that the moths were dead, painted, glued to the tree, and photographed. But that's a different arguement. You have an excellent arguement for Microevolution. Too bad I know Microevolution is real. Not so up on the whole Macro part though.

Well, I'm gone. Hope I expressed my two cents fairly. Good day to you all, and have a wonderful arguement.

(By the way, could anyone point me to an evolutionist site talking about transitional fossils, a topic I did not touch on? Thank you.)

you can argue that evolution is wrong because humans stopped evolving. But we haventm there are many oddities in the human genome. Like sicle cell anemia, another blood type, lets say everyone on easrth died but these people, thenthey are left, adn they bread out the other traits, then they have evolved right there. The reason it seems we dont evolve anymore is because we've short circutted it. With medicine and gd halth nothing really knocks off large populations, even when it should. A aduly who stopps a chan saw with his genitals can survive with modern medicine, in nature, he would be hippo food.

oh and i dont see why evolution and god have to conflict. God is immortal, i dont think he'd rush into making species, what 5 billion/ or million, years to him. i am christian but i do feel the the stories in the bible are to teach moral values, not to be taken as facts, because then people become angry linch mobs, and we cant have that, boo mobs. Species change, and eventually, they are diffrent from what they started as. If animals can go extinct they can also adapt.

wow, you are totally batshit insane. there are many HARD FACTS that support evolution. One of these is the evolution of an extra red blood cell for people living in Bolivia because they need more oxygen. there. a specific example of evolution. second. global warming: there is now proof that the northern ice caps are starting to break up. again, hard evidence. Natural selection, the strong kill out the weak. this is what keeps all of the people who want to turn animals into oil argue *for*. "screw it, we're stronger than these things, who gives a shit if we kill out an entire species because we can, its natural selection!"

this whole idea is stupid. that hippies are the only ones that want to see a future with grass and trees. that's stupid. You'd think that seeing as most of the people who want to destroy the enviroment are die-hard republicans, that whole morality and values about life bullshit would extend beyond a petri dish.

Woah... I'm confused now, an extra red blood cell??? 1? Do you have any idea how many red blood cells there are in a human body? And anyway, do you know what the kidneys job is? When theres a depletion in oxygen IT MAKES EXTRA RED BLOOD CELLS TO COMPENSATE.
Ice caps breaking up? Wasnt it an ice age that formed them? So wouldnt it be logical, that over time, they would melt. Hell, even if they do melt, when ice melts, it looses volume, the ocean levels might even fall a little.

Hell I'm happy to make some species extinct, the California Grizzly bear for example. Man simply cannot peacfully exist with certain animals. And some animals, just get in the way 8P.
You argue that evolution is caused by a change in the enviroment, forcing the whatever to adapt. Well, whats the problem with changing the enviroment? Everything will adapt, no harm, no foul. Unless of course, evolution is false.....
You cant have it both ways, either were killing them off because they cant adapt to a changing enviroment, and evolution is boloney. Or.... well, there is no or, thats the only way you can argue it.
I'm not saying the planet should become an industrial wasteland, but you cant argue that hippies, who have no regard for human life. And are more then willing to bomb a building full of people, to emphasize thier point that testing cosmetics on animals is wrong, have more values, and more morality, then people who are trying to run a business at a profit.

You know whats funny? Democrat is like a phase, if your 20 and a Republican, your crazy, but if your 40 and a Democrat your crazy, most people just grow out of it. Don't try to argue about the morality of Republicans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed the senate, with 69% of democrats voting for it, vs 82% of republicans. Hell Lincoln was a republican, the list goes on and on.

Stop trying to argue things, your whole ideas contridict eachother, either we need to try to protect the animals, because they cant change, or they will evolve to fit the changing enviroment.

Teradokistan has been deleted-without-warning for threatening other players.

iLock pending a more thorough investigation.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation