OT: evolution a myth or a truth

[SPJ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKTVPNW2kE&mode=related&search=

:D:confused::)

[SPJ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AYEf2Wgl8E&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTB8NN4OcK8&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tK54Y8hZhw&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7HvXfucB4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlli5XLqh80&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex2Qu7zey38&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxD0W3-4LKs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PbXUMpI7k&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fwDl7Ispyg&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCw6DLqITts&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHIBTf7nsrE&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBrdC2GnmfY&mode=related&search=Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhhuHxExps4&mode=related&search=Evolution

:)

[SPJ]

In short, we are from the chimp?

or just closely related?

:):confused:

[SanHeChuan]

Anyone who clings to the idea of creationism does so because they can not separate faith in God from faith in the bible. To them the bible gives them their proof and reason for believing in God. But is it really faith if you have the proof of written word? To their minds disproving the bible some how disproves God. If you interpret the bible in a literal sense it still leaves alot of room for interpretation. ;) Just look at the catastorphist (HTTP://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism)of Darwin's time, who explained away the time difference. How can you possibly believe in a literal account of creation when the story contradicts its self. First it says man is created last, then in the next section man is created before the animals. They can't both be right. Evolution does not disprove God it merely observes and explains the effect of the invisible hand of God on the world and the creation of life. It's far more practical than the 'poof' theory. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Oh and we are just related to the chimp, if that was a real question, just like we are related however distantly to every other living thing on earth.

[Daniel09]

I believe that evolution does exist, but on a very small scale, as in, you will see change over millions of years. Humans appear to be the only exception to the rule. We were primitive monkey people for the longest time when suddenly, primitive man disappeared and civilized (or more intelligent, whichever you pick) man took their place.

Sounds odd doesn't it. As if there was some kind of interference at one point, and then we appeared. Hand of God? Extraterrestrials? No one will know unless someone manages to create a machine that can send back images of the past, which won't be for a while.

[Corwyn]

I am so smacking myself :mad: in the face for getting into this thread, but I just can't help my self.

SanHeChuan, you are totally correct, and after 400 +/- years of persecution, torture and murder, even the Roman Catholic Church agrees with you, ToE and religion are not mutually exclusive. It is only so to the fundie types - most of whom (the leaders of ID anyway) IMHO don't believe it either but are doing it to gain/maintain power over people for money.

BUT - You've gone half way -if this"god's" involvement is invisible thereby untestable, unverifiable and UNNECESSARY since ToE explains EVERYTHING without this sky daddy- why bother with one? And since you've already gone the distance to say that the biblical sky dad as described in the bible is not 100% then the question BEGS itself- Which one of the over 4500 recognized version of this fairy tale "god" then?????????


Daniel09 - err, first that is not quit how it happened - been reading some ID lit have we?

Second, even IF we take your idea loosely there IS a testable theory within ToE that explains it. It's called Punctuated Equilibrium not "odd" at all. Suggest you read some articles on http://www.talkorigins.org/ it's full of some really good info.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

. We were primitive monkey people for the longest time when suddenly, primitive man disappeared and civilized (or more intelligent, whichever you pick) man took their place.

Reply]
No, not really. Primates, evolving into modern humans have been evolving for millions of years. Yes, ****saipiens appeared about 200,000 years ago, but there are many, many other types of man that predate us by millions of years going back in time to the first little monkey that was still a monkey, but whose descendants were destine to become us. There were many, many stages of man over these millions of years. ****sapiens are just the last step of this millions of years of evolution.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, its a Theory and as such it hasn't been proven to be "law" just yet.
Someday perhaps.

[TenTigers]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sdoA3AJ6zGE

[SanHeChuan]

Well, its a Theory and as such it hasn't been proven to be "law" just yet.
Someday perhaps.

Oh sh!t I know you didn't just say that. :eek:

Yeah like the Theory of Gravity. :rolleyes: Don't use words you don't know the definition to. Theory as used in every day vernacular, one is wrong, and two does not have the same meaning as a scientific theory (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm).

now go read a book that has more words than pictures. :p :D


BUT - You've gone half way -if this"god's" involvement is invisible thereby untestable, unverifiable and UNNECESSARY since ToE explains EVERYTHING without this sky daddy- why bother with one? And since you've already gone the distance to say that the biblical sky dad as described in the bible is not 100% then the question BEGS itself- Which one of the over 4500 recognized version of this fairy tale "god" then?????????

That's a personal question of faith, and while it is clear what side on the line your on, Not everybody wants to be on that side. Your logic does not disprove God. Just because you can understand the workings of the universe does not mean you know why it works that way, just that it does. God answers the question why. Maybe you have your own answer and that's cool but it doesn't appeal to everyone. Faith is a choice you either make it or you don't. There is no reason to try and prove or justify your faith.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You mean the Law of gravity ??
The theory of gravity is something else.

And Books? what are these things called books of which you speak off ??

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Ahh yes, the birth of intelligence..man discovers his first tool...and it is a weapon...

[TenTigers]

BURN HIM! BURN THE HERETIC! BURN THE BOOKS!!
(starting with the bible of course...)

[sanjuro_ronin]

BURN HIM! BURN THE HERETIC! BURN THE BOOKS!!
(starting with the bible of course...)

Keep the fires going !
Index for the win !!

[Lucas]

[I]. **** sapiens are just the last step of this millions of years of evolution.

Or are we just in our current stage, yet to continue our evolutionary process....

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Well, maybe we are just in our current phase. Seems like we are devolving more now though...or maybe some are evolving and others devolving I don't know which.

[Black Jack II]

I find the study of Evolutionary Psychology to be much more interesting and in retrospect can fit in very well with theological conviction.

The study of how our mind-sets have evolved through time and the direct changes in our evolutionary processes in thinking is at least to me much more important in the scheme of things. The big question being, is the human race forever constrained by our own biological past and behavioural predispositions or can we adapt new viewpoints that will enable us to survive as a race.

[Lucas]

Also, have we reached a hight to the point we can conciously effect our own evolutionary process?

IE: Fat Americans becoming the dominant breeding populace would result in very differnt genetics being the norm than were the dominant breeders say, athletes...

[sanjuro_ronin]

I find the study of Evolutionary Psychology to be much more interesting and in retrospect can fit in very well with theological conviction.

The study of how our mind-sets have evolved through time and the direct changes in our evolutionary processes in thinking is at least to me much more important in the scheme of things. The big question being, is the human race forever constrained by our own biological past and behavioural predispositions or can we adapt new viewpoints that will enable us to survive as a race.

Interesting point, we haven't been the dominating species for very long, one wonders what is in store for us.
Over the last few centuries we have been more of a virus on this planet than anything else.

[Black Jack II]

I think its worth a look, taking a peek at the stresses that have existed in our ancestral environment, both physical adaptive problems such as keeping away from predators, finding food, keeping warm, and the social stresses such as getting a proper mate, protecting yourself from enemies, social communication, can give us hints on the development of the human mind.

Take some cultures, some are years in the past on a psychological level, islamic facists for example, the whole culture seems one washed of death and impaired moral functioning.

Are certain people maybe just prone to a flawed genetic heritability and others tend are not?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Take some cultures, some are years in the past on a psychological level, islamic facists for example, the whole culture seems one washed of death and impaired moral functioning.

No good can come of going into something with predisposed views.

[SanHeChuan]

Take some cultures, some are years in the past on a psychological level, islamic facists for example, the whole culture seems one washed of death and impaired moral functioning.

That sound like one of those pseudo racist comments that got Jim Watson (http://www.newstatesman.com/200710190003)in trouble.

Culture is not genetic, it is learned.

[Black Jack II]

Of course culture is learned, children come into being with such basic drives as hunger, likewise they are without any culture knowledge at this point. However, people are genetically predisposed to rapidly learn language and other cultural baseline traits.

Taking that in stride, could it also not be possible for some groups to be predisposed to certain genetic psychological heritabilities?

[WinterPalm]

As a student of anthropology for over five years, and having taken and dialogued with many experts in this area, it is a very tough question to approach.

Evolution is a theory in the sense that speciation has occured...this has never be actually witnessed or proven. The past is put together using the most obscure and minimal pieces of information.

The oldest "human ancestor" is about 7-8 million years old.
The path is traced over millions of years with specific skeletal fragments and their attributes which denote a change towards becoming the modern h0mo sapiens sapiens.

In terms of a theory...a theory is a set of postulates that are aggregated to form a descriptive item, often times many theories are modified or abandoned as time goes on. Parts and pieces of evolutionary theory have been modified, added, and abandoned and definately, without a doubt, misused in social-darwinism and later stages of eugenics.

There's a film called "Flock of Dodos" that, although pro-evolution, approaches the issue of intelligent design and asks hard questions to both sides.

The problem with intelligent design is that you must place faith in something that science cannot prove or disprove, which is a core tenet of sciene: falsifiability. That said, the issue of irreducible complexity has added a very interesting conundrum to the evolutionary theory and I suspect this will be the catalyst that leads to a revolution in evolutionary theory along the lines of Kuhn's paradigm shifts.

[NJM]

I find the study of Evolutionary Psychology to be much more interesting and in retrospect can fit in very well with theological conviction.

The study of how our mind-sets have evolved through time and the direct changes in our evolutionary processes in thinking is at least to me much more important in the scheme of things. The big question being, is the human race forever constrained by our own biological past and behavioural predispositions or can we adapt new viewpoints that will enable us to survive as a race.

Do you look into sociobiology, psycho-representational theories, memetic theory, or complex schema development?

[Corwyn]

That's a personal question of faith, and while it is clear what side on the line your on, Not everybody wants to be on that side. Your logic does not disprove God. Just because you can understand the workings of the universe does not mean you know why it works that way, just that it does. God answers the question why. Maybe you have your own answer and that's cool but it doesn't appeal to everyone. Faith is a choice you either make it or you don't. There is no reason to try and prove your justify your faith.


Ok, I can live with that and even respect it -with the Caveat that all you want to do is keep it as YOUR faith, and not force it on me or my kids in school or hinder my rights. Unfortunately, if this is you, you are in the minority. HAve you seen the latest results on what most people think of athiests?


White palm - You maybe a great anthropology student but with comments like this you OBVIOUSLY failed biology 101


Evolution is a theory in the sense that speciation has occured...this has never be actually witnessed or proven. The past is put together using the most obscure and minimal pieces of information.

here is a link to a but a few papers you might want to read
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200166

OH and PLEASE stop using words you don't understand!
Here is a link read it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[SanHeChuan]

Ok, I can live with that and even respect it -with the Caveat that all you want to do is keep it as YOUR faith, and not force it on me or my kids in school or hinder my rights. Unfortunately, if this is you, you are in the minority. HAve you seen the latest results on what most people think of athiests?

I'm a non-religious non-christian type or some such, labels :rolleyes: But that's how they should think, right? What do they say about athiests?

[omarthefish]

Also, have we reached a hight to the point we can conciously effect our own evolutionary process?

IE: Fat Americans becoming the dominant breeding populace would result in very differnt genetics being the norm than were the dominant breeders say, athletes...

Oh wow. A eugenics fan.

Seeing as how well that worked out the last time.

[Shaolin Wookie]

In short, we are from the chimp?

or just closely related?

:):confused:

We don't come from chimps. We're just related, distantly.

Here's the skinny on human evolution. We didn't come from any other primate. We are that primate. That primate looked differently in the past.....just like my parents, through genetic bonding in my case, look different from me. Just like their parents looked different from them.....ad infinitum for seven million years or so.....

Humans are not monkeys, or gorillas, or chimps. Humans are humans, and were humans in the past.......only, they may have looked like chimps or gorillas back then.;)

[Shaolin Wookie]

Oh wow. A eugenics fan.

Seeing as how well that worked out the last time.

Still happens--genetic engineering, for instance.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I find the study of Evolutionary Psychology to be much more interesting and in retrospect can fit in very well with theological conviction.

The study of how our mind-sets have evolved through time and the direct changes in our evolutionary processes in thinking is at least to me much more important in the scheme of things. The big question being, is the human race forever constrained by our own biological past and behavioural predispositions or can we adapt new viewpoints that will enable us to survive as a race.

For evolutionary psychology, there's a cool book by Klein and Edgar, forget the title, that posits humans underwent a neural mutation about 30,000 years ago which sparked the bloom of culture. It's a really great read.

As for the rest:
Look at history. We have, essentially, about 4,000 years of recorded history (more or less, depending on whether or not you count paintings such as at Lascaux as history, or believe the dates oral legends purport). This history is shaped by environment, genetics, biology, territory, behavioral predispositions, and abstractions of the mind. The survival of the race only depends on humanity's ability to cope with changes in teh environment--especially those that they create. Like any animal.

In all reality, we're the greatest thing since dinosaurs, and you saw how that train wreck ended.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Are certain people maybe just prone to a flawed genetic heritability and others tend are not?

It's the genetic can of worms--Pandora's Box. One of the most interesting fields of genetics is genetic behavioralism. Here's what I mean by calling it something as sinister as Pandora's Box: for instance, pedophiles often have a malformation in their hypothalmus region, and chemical imbalances as a result.......genes code for proteins, proteins make the human body. Chemical imbalances often cause confusion, altered mind states, and even direct sexual impulses. Is there a gene that codes for this malformation, and this malformation causes some kind of courting confusion due to the chemical imbalance? This is the era of nature and nurture, not vs.

Imagine the legal/social/moral problems this raises--it's a really bizarre and uncomfortable landscape...........

But man, I can't even stomach the idea of calling that kind of behavior natural---


But what a monster in the closet, huh? Terrain that's tough to tread.

[WinterPalm]

Ok, I can live with that and even respect it -with the Caveat that all you want to do is keep it as YOUR faith, and not force it on me or my kids in school or hinder my rights. Unfortunately, if this is you, you are in the minority. HAve you seen the latest results on what most people think of athiests?


White palm - You maybe a great anthropology student but with comments like this you OBVIOUSLY failed biology 101



here is a link to a but a few papers you might want to read
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200166

OH and PLEASE stop using words you don't understand!
Here is a link read it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Point me to a research paper that states people came from monkeys and gives undeniable and provable evidence.
For what it is worth I received an A in Human Evolution and an A+ and an A in the genetics component.

Although I don't use wikipedia as an authority on anything...I will succomb and add that a theory has within it the ability to predict.
May I suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of scientific revolutions and the way theories are made, modified, and subsequently rejected while some pieces remain intact for future usage. Theories are explanations, the best at the moment based on methods and observations, but all in all, they are waiting to be falsified so that knowledge can continue to deal with anomalies.
Anomalies/unaccoutable for phenomena, that exist outside the boundaries of our current theoretical explanatory abilities...these are what drive us forward.

I want to know the truth as much as some do...but I won't jump to conclusions because of faith.

The text I used was Humankind Emerging published 2006...it believes evolution to be true, but does not give absolute information as to whether or not it is an actual event in the human past. So far it is the best explanation and logically connects all the dots, but leaves much to be desired...that said, it avoids the leap of faith in affirming god did it all.
Many questions are left unanswered in the evolutionary explanation/theory...and that is where the excitement lies for students of biology; in seeing where our knowledge will go to account for these discrepancies.
What is the dogmatic truth of today's evolutionary theories will be debunked in five, ten, twenty, or fifty years.

The genetics can show connections between species that suggest a distant ancestor which is illuminating!


Oh yeah, it's Winterpalm...not white palm...although you could go out on a stretch and call me white.:D

[WinterPalm]

It's the genetic can of worms--Pandora's Box. One of the most interesting fields of genetics is genetic behavioralism. Here's what I mean by calling it something as sinister as Pandora's Box: for instance, pedophiles often have a malformation in their hypothalmus region, and chemical imbalances as a result.......genes code for proteins, proteins make the human body. Chemical imbalances often cause confusion, altered mind states, and even direct sexual impulses. Is there a gene that codes for this malformation, and this malformation causes some kind of courting confusion due to the chemical imbalance? This is the era of nature and nurture, not vs.

Imagine the legal/social/moral problems this raises--it's a really bizarre and uncomfortable landscape...........

But man, I can't even stomach the idea of calling that kind of behavior natural---


But what a monster in the closet, huh? Terrain that's tough to tread.

Or are all these physical traits a reaction to the perverse mentalities of these people?

The history of genetic-behaviour explanations is an abomination that should be abandoned...the history should be taught but the practice should be thrown out.

Let's explain the poor because their genes are garbage...let's explain the lower class status of blacks on genes...let's remove certain undesirables from the human gene-pool.
It's all rubbish.
We have the abilities for complex, abstract though, the ability to speak an incredible range of vocalizations...but we are not born chinese or american or turkish and we are not born basketball players or pedophiles.
Born evil? Maybe in retrospect...but put forward a method for identifying those born evil, and then see if they do in fact become evil.

[WinterPalm]

The jellyfish eyeball article was amazing!

One of the biggest arguments against evolution is the irreducible complexity especially in terms of the eyebell among others.
Great find!

[NJM]

One of the biggest arguments against evolution is the irreducible complexity especially in terms of the eyebell among others.
Great find!

Explain what you mean. Do you mean to tell me that because they eyeball's incredibly complex, it's a shot against evolution?

[crazy_ivan]

One of the biggest arguments against evolution is the irreducible complexity especially in terms of the eyebell among others.
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_ community)
talkorigins (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html)
argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.


Evolution is a theory in the sense that speciation has occured...this has never be actually witnessed or proven.
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)
talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)



What is the dogmatic truth of today's evolutionary theories will be debunked in five, ten, twenty, or fifty years.
In this post you seem to state that: because what is considered "true" today may be falsified later on, it is therefore wrong. Is this what you meant? Or were you simply stating the process of science?

As for others discussing evolve / devolve: in the world of science devolution does not really exist. It's just evolution ("change").

The eugenics topic could actually be interesting to discuss, but that would threadjack the heck out of this.

[Corwyn]

Point me to a research paper that states people came from monkeys and gives undeniable and provable evidence.
For what it is worth I received an A in Human Evolution and an A+ and an A in the genetics component.



I have serious doubts in the integrity of the second sentence of your statement!
You wouldn't happen to be a school board member in Dover PA by any chance would you?

ANY ONE who could make such a stupendously, ignorant statement as you have in the first part of this quote, coupled with your other gem pulled straight out of the ass of Gish, Hovind, Dembsky or one of the other IDiots about irreducible complexity and the eye, obviously never took any biology classes outside of Sunday school - or got an A for entirely different reasons that have nothing to do with understanding the curriculum.


1) NO ONE (unless we are talking about an extreme short hand definition) of any credentials studying ToE or human evolution has EVER claimed that **** sapiens evolved from monkeys, but that we have a common ancestry somewhere in the distant past!

So your disingenuous request for said proof is either an example of your ignorance on the subject or just the typical behavior of the lying for jebus types
who are pushing the ID agenda.

Humans are Catarrhini which is a parvorder of the Primates, one of the three major divisions of the suborder Haplorrhini It contains the family Cercopithecidae Hylobatidae and the Hominidae (hominids), which include humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans.

As for your Eye comment - This again is straight out of the ass of some Intelligent Design pamphlet you picked up. CLUE - just because it's new to you doesn't mean it hasn't been debunked about a million times on the web by ACTUAL scientists doing ACTUAL science! I could post all the info and show all the faults and "miss-designs" by this irreducible designer of yours but previous experience tells me it will be completely waisted on you.


I just KNEW I should of stayed away from this thread. But it's this kind of sh8 that keeps giving me nightmares about could happen if the "righteous" get full power.

[Goldenmane]

Irreducible Complexity(tm) is, and has abundantly been shown to be, garbage science. It isn't even, as they say, wrong. It's not science.

Kill your religion. You'll feel better.

-five points to the first to get the misquote...

[Shaolin Wookie]

Or are all these physical traits a reaction to the perverse mentalities of these people?

The history of genetic-behaviour explanations is an abomination that should be abandoned...the history should be taught but the practice should be thrown out.

Let's explain the poor because their genes are garbage...let's explain the lower class status of blacks on genes...let's remove certain undesirables from the human gene-pool.
It's all rubbish.
We have the abilities for complex, abstract though, the ability to speak an incredible range of vocalizations...but we are not born chinese or american or turkish and we are not born basketball players or pedophiles.
Born evil? Maybe in retrospect...but put forward a method for identifying those born evil, and then see if they do in fact become evil.

Um........genetic behavioralism isn't eugenics, phrenology, or race discrimination......

It's another word for Instinct. Unlearned behaviors that are repeated in a species without any teaching. (These same behaviors can be seen in other species, as well. Are you saying theirs are perverse reactions to mental disturbances, in animal society---say, bonobo society?).

You're confusing pseudoscience with science.

[David Jamieson]

Neither science or religion can prove or disprove evolution with 100% flawlesness.

mutation and adaptation which in turn causes permanent changes in a species can be noted and experimentally reproduced in short live species such as mice, nematodes etc etc.

In my opinion, science has the leg up on the knowledge over religion.

religion can't move forward because most of it is bound to dogma and doctrine of old, narrow and mostly incorrect thinking.

The value of religion is sadly skewed unfortunately. It should be about worship and community, but it is more often than not one group sitting in judgement of another or some group trying to convince another that their world view is right and everyone elses is wrong etc etc.

Frankly, I think science has the more forward approach to this.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Explain what you mean. Do you mean to tell me that because they eyeball's incredibly complex, it's a shot against evolution?

No...it's an argument used by Intelligent Design proponontes to the point of exhaustion.

Clearly the eye is too complex for it to have evolved over 2 billion years. Despite the fact it occurs in so many different formats, with different results (some see in shades, some in colors), with different uses (bats rarely even use theirs (not always blind, ya know)...LOL, Hawks have keener sight because of the altitude at which they hunt, tigers see better in the dark b/c of their methods of predation), with so many defects (blindness, color blindness, macular degeneration, nearsightedness (I'd have lasted about a month in the wild, before mistaking a lion for my father b/c of the 'stache), farsightedness, stigmatism, cataracts, glaucoma----to name but a few of the most common, which most of us on this board can probably claim to some degree....LOL......

More than anything, this points out the likelihood of Unintelligent design. After all, the Flying Spaghetti monster has eyes on stalks....what's stupider than that?

[Shaolin Wookie]

In my opinion, science has the leg up on the knowledge over religion.

There's a reason for this, and it's because in Greek, Science means "knowledge". Religion comes from "religare"--to bind. The latter only has to do with...


...worship and community, but it is more often than not one group sitting in judgement of another or some group trying to convince another that their world view is right and everyone elses is wrong etc etc.

Plus, I love how religious people see science as a series of usurpations, rather than as a syncretic process.

[WinterPalm]

I have serious doubts in the integrity of the second sentence of your statement!
You wouldn't happen to be a school board member in Dover PA by any chance would you?

ANY ONE who could make such a stupendously, ignorant statement as you have in the first part of this quote, coupled with your other gem pulled straight out of the ass of Gish, Hovind, Dembsky or one of the other IDiots about irreducible complexity and the eye, obviously never took any biology classes outside of Sunday school - or got an A for entirely different reasons that have nothing to do with understanding the curriculum.


1) NO ONE (unless we are talking about an extreme short hand definition) of any credentials studying ToE or human evolution has EVER claimed that **** sapiens evolved from monkeys, but that we have a common ancestry somewhere in the distant past!

So your disingenuous request for said proof is either an example of your ignorance on the subject or just the typical behavior of the lying for jebus types
who are pushing the ID agenda.

Humans are Catarrhini which is a parvorder of the Primates, one of the three major divisions of the suborder Haplorrhini It contains the family Cercopithecidae Hylobatidae and the Hominidae (hominids), which include humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans.

As for your Eye comment - This again is straight out of the ass of some Intelligent Design pamphlet you picked up. CLUE - just because it's new to you doesn't mean it hasn't been debunked about a million times on the web by ACTUAL scientists doing ACTUAL science! I could post all the info and show all the faults and "miss-designs" by this irreducible designer of yours but previous experience tells me it will be completely waisted on you.


I just KNEW I should of stayed away from this thread. But it's this kind of sh8 that keeps giving me nightmares about could happen if the "righteous" get full power.

Obviously you have no desire to have a conversation but are just resorting to insults. I will assume my points have merit.
For the record I am not religious in the slightest nor do I accept the argument by intelligent design. They do point to interesting problems in the theory...as do scientists.
I do accept this thoery, with so many holes and fill in the blanks because I am not bound to believe in this system based on faith. The observed instances and the classes I have taken and the people I have discussed this with, aside from rabid scientism and religious fanaticism, most people tend to agree with me.
I have no interest either way, but where there are inconsistencies there are inconsistencies, and these must be dealt with if science and the theory of natural evolution is to answer questions.

[WinterPalm]

Um........genetic behavioralism isn't eugenics, phrenology, or race discrimination......

It's another word for Instinct. Unlearned behaviors that are repeated in a species without any teaching. (These same behaviors can be seen in other species, as well. Are you saying theirs are perverse reactions to mental disturbances, in animal society---say, bonobo society?).

You're confusing pseudoscience with science.

I know exactly what this thoery is.
But when do people with agendas stop? Ok, needing food and a family is a genetic necessity...what sort of family? Monogamous is the only kind?
You see where I'm going. I am against the psudeo science that genetic behaviouralism has led to in the past. It is not a road we should embark on...ever.

[WinterPalm]

I have serious doubts in the integrity of the second sentence of your statement!
You wouldn't happen to be a school board member in Dover PA by any chance would you?

ANY ONE who could make such a stupendously, ignorant statement as you have in the first part of this quote, coupled with your other gem pulled straight out of the ass of Gish, Hovind, Dembsky or one of the other IDiots about irreducible complexity and the eye, obviously never took any biology classes outside of Sunday school - or got an A for entirely different reasons that have nothing to do with understanding the curriculum.


1) NO ONE (unless we are talking about an extreme short hand definition) of any credentials studying ToE or human evolution has EVER claimed that **** sapiens evolved from monkeys, but that we have a common ancestry somewhere in the distant past!

So your disingenuous request for said proof is either an example of your ignorance on the subject or just the typical behavior of the lying for jebus types
who are pushing the ID agenda.

Humans are Catarrhini which is a parvorder of the Primates, one of the three major divisions of the suborder Haplorrhini It contains the family Cercopithecidae Hylobatidae and the Hominidae (hominids), which include humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans.

As for your Eye comment - This again is straight out of the ass of some Intelligent Design pamphlet you picked up. CLUE - just because it's new to you doesn't mean it hasn't been debunked about a million times on the web by ACTUAL scientists doing ACTUAL science! I could post all the info and show all the faults and "miss-designs" by this irreducible designer of yours but previous experience tells me it will be completely waisted on you.


I just KNEW I should of stayed away from this thread. But it's this kind of sh8 that keeps giving me nightmares about could happen if the "righteous" get full power.

And we would generally refer to those lower primates from whom we descended as monkeys...don't you think? Or apes?
It hasn't been proven yet. Doesn't mean the theory isn't worth working with, but it still hasn't been proven.

[WinterPalm]

Neither science or religion can prove or disprove evolution with 100% flawlesness.

mutation and adaptation which in turn causes permanent changes in a species can be noted and experimentally reproduced in short live species such as mice, nematodes etc etc.

In my opinion, science has the leg up on the knowledge over religion.

religion can't move forward because most of it is bound to dogma and doctrine of old, narrow and mostly incorrect thinking.

The value of religion is sadly skewed unfortunately. It should be about worship and community, but it is more often than not one group sitting in judgement of another or some group trying to convince another that their world view is right and everyone elses is wrong etc etc.

Frankly, I think science has the more forward approach to this.

In terms of this issue, this is exactly how I feel.

[WinterPalm]

Explain what you mean. Do you mean to tell me that because they eyeball's incredibly complex, it's a shot against evolution?

In simple forms, take an organ in which all the parts are essential for proper health and regulatory action, and remove a part. Let's say it didn't evolve this part yet, how then would it function? It seems like many pieces cannot operate unless they are integral wholes.

I think some people have misunderstood me in that they think I am advocating god or religion or something. Religion is way further off than any other suggestion. But that's not to say there aren't some good arguments against evolution and some of its basic tenets.

[cjurakpt]

stop Phoenix from rising

[Corwyn]

And we would generally refer to those lower primates from whom we descended as monkeys...don't you think? Or apes?
It hasn't been proven yet. Doesn't mean the theory isn't worth working with, but it still hasn't been proven.


err NO - You built a strawman that says -
A became B - as in monkeys became humans- then you claim that there is no proof from ToE for this, therefor ToE must be wrong.

But ToE does not say that humans evolved FROM monkeys., Rather that monkeys AND humans evolved from something else. (NOTE -Extreme short hand here) Thus the phrase COMMON ANCESTOR instead of direct ancestor. I and others point out that fact that your initial statement is FALSE and does not represent ToE accurately. YET you go back to saying the same thing AGAIN.

It hasn't been proven yet. Doesn't mean the theory This is just a Gem!
Do you realize how dumb what you are saying here is, I guess not or you wouldn't do it.
CLUE - someone already posted a link to the scientific definition of theory which you OBVIOUSLY ignored or couldn't understand. CLUE - in science a theory is superior to a fact because a theory is SUPPORTED by multiple independent fact.
So an apple falling from a tree is an independent verifiable fact which is only one of the facts that supports the theory of gravity.

Likewise have you ever heard of Germ Theory? Probably not, but it's what all modern medicine is based on. Guess where Germ Theory comes from - yup ToE.

Perhaps you've heard about the fact that TB and host of other diseases are
making a comeback and that the antibiotics like penicillin which used to work 100% on these diseases are now totally ineffective on some strains of TB and Straptichocis(sp)

GUESS what that is? YUP It's only ONE of the literally 100,000s of FACTS that PROVES the Theory of Evolution.

Here is something to think about - of ALL the scientific theories out there, the theory of evolution is the most researched and comprehensively understood scientific theory in the history of science. We know FAR less about the theory of gravity and how it works then ToE . Yet none of the religious idoits or non science types are running around talking about returning to a geocentric universe (well accept for few fruitcakes)

Here is another thing to think about. Science is the most cut throat, competitive field you can get into - it makes politics look like kinder-garden shenanigans.
In some cases it could be worth billions of dollars. This is part of the reason why ToE has been studied more than any other theory - from the invention of viagra to AI (that's right ) ToE is used as the foundation for invention. If a SINGLE scientist found a SINGLE fact that disproved or even slightly contradicted ToE he would be more famous then Gallilio, Darwin, Newton, Einstein and Copernicus combined. Yet after a 150+ years now of intense scrutiny the only thing people -not even scientists - have come up with is irreducible complexity which gullible people like you parrot back with your "In simple forms, take an organ in which all the parts are essential for proper health and regulatory action, and remove a part" REALLY - So tell me what the hell is an appendix for?

I guess it's sky daddy's built in destruct button if I wear dissimilar fabrics or get a tattoo ( see Leviticus)


Obviously you have no desire to have a conversation but are just resorting to insults. I will assume my points have merit

RIGHT - I constantly forget that pointing out the FACT that irreducible complexity and intelligent design is based on utter nonsense, and offering direct proof to counter the statements made by those who have ZERO understanding of modern science and continue to make claims ( normal people call them LIES) which have been utterly disproved numerous times (i.e. your eye comment) is insulting. :eek::rolleyes: and THIS proves that it has merit. Tell me how is the weather on your planet?

[Corwyn]

Oh, and I just want you to think about this.

You talk about insults - yet you glibly come on boards like this and maybe others
and question the integrity, intelligence and dedication of literally MILLIONS of scientists who have spent the combined time of centuries studying and preparing Phds to get a degree. NEVER MIND the other other centuries of day in day out research.

But YOU have the audacity to just blankly state that they don't know what they're talking about or that they as a unanimous mass of people are part of some conspiracy to cover up the "truth". :eek:

[johnnycache]

In simple forms, take an organ in which all the parts are essential for proper health and regulatory action, and remove a part. Let's say it didn't evolve this part yet, how then would it function? It seems like many pieces cannot operate unless they are integral wholes.

I think some people have misunderstood me in that they think I am advocating god or religion or something. Religion is way further off than any other suggestion. But that's not to say there aren't some good arguments against evolution and some of its basic tenets.

The organ would function as it would in a less complex being with a less complex version of that organ - you're looking at it backwards, trying to reduce from the current state, and you're also postulating an organ which is made of many 'parts' all of which are needed . . . which is just. . .so flawed. . . it's more like generations of software or something. Look at the lungs on a spider, for example, which thank god are primitive and place an absolute limit on the size of a spider.

In other words: The evolution OF the current organ was one factor in allowing the current being to evolve. It's not chicken or egg, pow you're a human - it's binocular vision allowing one set of slow niche changes, opposable digits allowing another set, and each niche change then stress previously untested or unnoticed factors.

What people don't realize is that evolution is not an upward process - it's an adaption to the environment. What they further fail to realize is that we are an evolutionary hack - a creature that can adapt to its environment without genetic change.

This potentially frees us from the evolutionary shuffle and allows us a chance at an upward process, a chance at someday-divinity.

If we accept our place, learn about the world - scientifically - and make use of our ability to thwart and guide evolution, we may one day become godlike ourselves.

Then, my guess, our omni-present teenage kids express themselves in biblical times: "Oh man timmy appear in the sky and tell that little one, abe, tell him to . . . I don't know KILL HIS KID OR SOMETHING... .... .... oh crap dude he's gonna do it that could **** up space-time stop him stop him"

[Shaolin Wookie]

And we would generally refer to those lower primates from whom we descended as monkeys...don't you think? Or apes?
It hasn't been proven yet. Doesn't mean the theory isn't worth working with, but it still hasn't been proven.

Lol....not really. We simply say that we evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys, but more realistically, we are cousined to apes. Humans are classified as a form of ape. Are we gorillas, monkeys, or chimps? Of course not. We're humans. But we are apes, nonetheless. And if you have an image of us as gorillas, you're off base. It's more like Bigfoot, only shorter. Or, if you like, my avatar........;)

But taking hypertrichosis on a more realistic level--it is the resurgence of a dormant section of DNA long unused. Sexual selection over years, along with genetic mutations, etc. have favored hairless humans over hairy humans (modern man vs. a wookie; not CK models vs. Italians...LOL). I have seen a form of hypertrichosis in real life. There was a South American chick at UGA who had it on both of her arms, wrist to upper bicep. It's not just excess hair. It's actual fur, like an ape. Or, perhaps more fittingly, like a human.