Man I'm Suprised There's So Many People Who Dont Believe In Evolution. Yo I Heard Something Like Are Apendix Use To Probably Be An Organ We Used And Was Alot Bigger Wouldnt That Be Consider Evolution?
Printable View
Man I'm Suprised There's So Many People Who Dont Believe In Evolution. Yo I Heard Something Like Are Apendix Use To Probably Be An Organ We Used And Was Alot Bigger Wouldnt That Be Consider Evolution?
the Creator in the beginning made all types of birds, all types of monkeys, all types of fish, all types of insects, and all types of various beasts. all have have similar traits like breathing oxygen, they eat, have similar internal organs, etc. so naturally they will have some similar DNA, some more similar than others. but the monkey, the bird, the fish, the insect, and the various beasts are not related to each other in that one did not come from the other. they were all independently created but share some similar functions.
only problem is the Creator made one man and one women. since the women was made from the man they had to have been of similar ethnicity. so how are there different races of people in the world? to my knowledge the bible does not account for this.
Ok granted I accept that we are related. This still doesn't show that we evolved from each other or who evolved from who.
exactly.. the human appendix is an example of a vestigial appendage/organ.. just like a human being born with a tail appendage.. we are all still born with the appendix organ that serves no function in modern man.. but yet, our genetics still contains the encoded data to produce this organ.. even tho its function is extinct !Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollie Fingers
thousands of years from now, we can "assume" that modern man will no longer produce this organ! it will only sporadically appear as a birth defect and then a new group of ppl will debate over the appendix like we are debating over the human tail!
so what was the former use of the appendix?
There are many problems with this.. if a god allegedly made all of the creatures fully formed, they would have no reason to change or improve or evolve from their original perfect "god given" form.. yet we know that creatures do change and improve on their original perfect god crafted design.. this is known as the religious flaw of "immutability" ie anything that a god creates will share in his perfection. And thus has no need to change or improve. etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by wadeDyNaMiTe
another problem with creation by a god as explained in genesis is the order! In the bible its explained that plants were created before the creation of insects (which is evolutionarily impossible) there are carloads of logical problems with it.. not just that one.. for more.. purchase acalltosanity and read ch 2. ..hehehe… jus playin. but seriously.. no matter how u reconcile it.. the genesis creationmyth just doesnt cut it.. it creates more problems that can only be solved with "divine power"
more importantly is that we humans are allegedly made in the image of god, but yet we share 98% of our genetic code with a chimpanzee.. this would force us to conclude that god must be atleast 98% chimpanzee as well.
about the race issue stemming from adam and eve.. that’s not the biggest and only problem this story has..more importantly than races, a poplulation of a species resulting from only 2 progenitors is bound to die after about 4 generations due to what is known in genetics as "recessive lethal inheritance traits".. u cant start a population with 2 progenitors and expect it to bottleneck into a worldwide population. If u only have 2 individuals, u have no way to maximize diversity of the genetic pool.. (diversity is one with evolution), a stagnant gene pool is as good as dead.
its simple.. the appendix (the human appendix) is a left over rudimentary and primitive organ that is supposed to be attached to the cecum and aid in the digestion of harsh plant material.Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeDyNaMiTe
but humans are no longer herbivores and dont digest harsh plant material (we havent been herbivores for a very long time), thus the appendix is worthless and lost its functioning...
just like animals who live in caves eventually lose the need to even produce eyes but still have eyelids.. its a leftover.. think of it as an evolutionary "throwback"!
another evolutionary throwback which we possess and still develop are wisdom teeth.
again this only shows that things change due to the environment they are in. it does not show that one comes from another. maybe one of the great attributes that "god" gave us is that we can adapt to our environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
why is it impossible for the plant to come before the animal? spare a poor man who doesnt like reading books your knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
i dont doubt it since monkeys looks a lot like humans. if you've ever seen a real ugly muthafucka they look like a monkey. yet and still we're not monkey's, we're humans. we dont know if "god" has a DNA code at all. again you've shown similarity but no relation.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
i would say "god" is 100% human.
now here's where the "divine power" comes in. when adam and eve were reproducing and the children they had were marrying each other(eww :r) "god" made it so that this could happen without jeopordizing the life and health of the people incest breeding. when you get to leviticus or duetoronomy(dont remember which) and the population was numerous enough, "god" made rules for his people who followed him not to be sleeping around with immediate family members and first cousins. anyone who did that would end up suffereing what you have idnetified as "recessive lethal inheretance traits" as punishment for disobeying "god".Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
but you still have the issue of how the different races came about from just two 2 people.
im really not sure what else would convince u that genetic similarity = relation. how else could i explain it.. please let me know where i am going wrong and what exactly i could do to explain it better.. :)Quote:
again this only shows that things change due to the environment they are in. it does not show that one comes from another. maybe one of the great attributes that "god" gave us is that we can adapt to our environment.
its not impossible for plants to come b4 animals... in fact thats sort of what happened in reality.. im talking about the creation myth stating that plants came before "animals that take flight" and that would include the flying insects... thats impossible ! the flying insect evolved along with the flowering plant (they are in essence a symbiotic relation).. its just a little technicality that the creation myth doesnt take into account. so u cant have a story that says the plants (that included flowering plants) existed before the creation of animals and creatures that take flight.Quote:
why is it impossible for the plant to come before the animal? spare a poor man who doesnt like reading books your knowledge.
looks dont tell the story! forget looks.. im talking about genetic identity.. if god created us in his image (that would include our genetic code as well).. and it just so happens that we are 98% gorilla, then by logic that would mean that god is atleast 98% gorilla or greater.. he cant be 100% human because to be 100% human means to be 98% gorilla.. thats all i was pointing out.Quote:
i dont doubt it since monkeys looks a lot like humans. if you've ever seen a real ugly muthafucka they look like a monkey. yet and still we're not monkey's, we're humans. we dont know if "god" has a DNA code at all. again you've shown similarity but no relation.
i would say "god" is 100% human.
Quote:
now here's where the "divine power" comes in. when adam and eve were reproducing and the children they had were marrying each other(eww :r) "god" made it so that this could happen without jeopordizing the life and health of the people incest breeding. when you get to leviticus or duetoronomy(dont remember which) and the population was numerous enough, "god" made rules for his people who followed him not to be sleeping around with immediate family members and first cousins. anyone who did that would end up suffereing what you have idnetified as "recessive lethal inheretance traits" as punishment for disobeying "god".
well i guess anything will always be possible if one believes in a god with magical divine powers that can trump the rules of the world.. thats why science and the concept of an all powerful creator will never truly reconcile.. because the believer of the all powerful always has a scape goat.. the divine power of their deity.. while the rationalist is forced to abide by natural laws.
yea.. and its a biological impossibility to develop different races of people from a 2 person population.. u need multiple populations evolving at the same time in order to produce the genetic variance needed for "race"Quote:
but you still have the issue of how the different races came about from just two 2 people.
but here comes the scape goat... god has divine powers so, that means some how.. some way.. he did it..
What's up Timbs? Just enjoying the beautiful weather..lolQuote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
What about Stephen Oppenheimer's claim in his new book Out of Eden.
It's shown through your precious DNA that all people outside of Africa left Africa in one mass exodus and ALL share a common male and female ancestor.
Our appendix has shrunk. That doesn't mean we have evolved into a new species lol. I can change the size of an organ in the next few years through certain activities if I choose. This doesn't prove I came from a monkey.
This does however prove my long standing point that humans didn't always eat meat.
Also, I thought I posted this but I can't find it.
Aren't our formerly thought of "ancesstorS" the homo erectus etc all the way back now thought by science to actually be our cousins not our ancestors? That we didn't evolve from them but were merely very similar.
And also that these "ancestors" in some cases were no different to certain existing modern races, and that there is less difference between them and modern humans than an equatorial African and a caucasian today?
Also, Timbs do you believe some people now are more evolved than others?
once again.. folks.. this is what im talking about... ppl misunderstand scientific theories and misunderstand evolutionQuote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
of course all of humanity can be traced back to a male and female ancestor... HOWEVER.. this is no way means that there were originally only 2 people on the planet!!
there is a big difference!..... picture a population of 1000 people in africa... they are thriving....multiplying etc etc... then... they split off into different smaller communites (but all the while still retaining the diverse dna of a larger group) .. this is what is known as genetic diversity... then the smaller groups go their separate ways until eventually u have a man and woman (im simplifying it. but keep in mind its more complex than this)... this man and woman end up having children who go on to populate other areas of the globe.....
this is what he is talking about! he isnt talking about a population starting from 2 ppl .. he is talking about a larger population giving rise thru geographic and behavioral isolation to a woman and man whom we all have in common!
this is a tremendous difference !
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
1) i never said we are a new species because our appendix shrunk.. dont go start throwing out red herrings
2) u are incorrect that humans didnt always eat meat! modern humans have always ate meat.. its our primate ancestors who were herbivores!.. so no!... recognize that we always ate meat
no.. but more importantly it depends on what u mean when u say "more evolved"Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
u have to stop looking at evolution as a race for progress.. evolution does no simply a step "forward" toward complexity.. it simply implies change and difference..
people cant evolve.. only whole populations can "evolve"
so no, there are not some people who are "more evolved" than others simply because the statement doesnt make evolutionary sense ("more evolved")
is the human "more evolved" than the baboon?
we are not! we are simply evolutionarily different than the baboon.
u cant quantify it and plave humanoid subjective perception upon the word "more"
not entirely true...............Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
I had the oppurtunity to travel to the acrtic circle with a group of 7 Nasa scientists-I was visiting with a Nasa scientist who tried to convince me that- Shamans are controlled by the devil- Angels and Demons veiw us on a dimensional plane with tools smimlar to what use- here's his example
you can view a recording on television and watch over something- play- rewind- fast forward- his therory is that "Angels" watch over us from another dimension with a tool like a telvision- he explained this by saying "we can see what's happening on the t.v. but the people in the t.v can't see us--------------
ON the angels t.v. they can directley effect what goes on in the movie there watching- Demons can also do this- he claims that when they see someone with their legs crossed, meditating, they become fair game- because theire mind acts as an antannae- calling out to the demons who in turn manipulate their minds
He go's by Nasa Mike- he's convinced that through science he can come closer to God Almighty- here's a link to his website
http://www.nasamike.com/
the theory of humans evolving from bi- pedal primates is dis-proved with the evidence you presented hereQuote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
gentics-
act as ingridients for everything
if my gentic make-up is 40% identical to an apple than perhaps I evolved from an apple-
then if my genetic code us smilar to yeast then perhaps I evolved from yeast too-
then how did I evolve from a monkey also?
Humans the same gentic make up of almost everything- I have eyes like an like a fish, I have hair like a bear, I have teeth like a cow- I have all the ingriedents that make up almost everything else, then how can I be pin pointed to evolving from one thing?
Yes we are all related- that much is true but it doesn't nesscarily mean everything stemmed from a one cell organism-
then how did I evolve from a monkey also?
it is a proven fact........lol
as the monkey evolevd to the other stages more artifacts were found such as tools weapons
....
writtings on cave walls
....
as climents change on earth we will evolve....
example............................
if ice age rolls arounded for the 2nd comming.........and humans are still alive after some odd years ..they will evolve in to take the cold weather...in such as growing more hair
witch brings me to the next thing
this monkey was full of hair
as it ,,,,, was colder back in those days couse no globle wormming
plus tha last ice age
as things begain to heat up the evolutiong of the monkey became the next step as n less hair
also with them creating fire got them thinking witch gave em bigger brains ...then created tools............
i mean i dont have to go over it all as u suppose to know it all ready..as it was tought in school
belive it or not we are still evolving.............u see peeps living till 110
when 110 years has past from now i belive they will raise the avg age og living to 100 years of age
thats if we make it that long.......as we are in for a ice age some time in next years to come
the reason people live longer now is due to the fact of the advance's in modern medicine and better living conditionsQuote:
Originally Posted by 100pr00f
if you go somwhere where living conditions, are worse, example lack of clean water- the live expectacy rate is much lower-
there isn't any evidence or "artifacts" fossils, bones, that link man with monkeys
no evidence what so ever- prove it i'd really like to see it
honestley do you beleive everything they cram down your throat in school? if you do I really pity you
again.. u are misunderstanding what i am saying..Quote:
Originally Posted by Charging Soldier
the genetic similarity between us and apples and yeast does not mean that we come from yeast or apples.. all it simply means is that we are related by way of a common ancestor many million years ago.. our most recent common ancestor however is a bipedal primate.
i dont see why this is hard to fathom.
evolution has nothing to due with increase in life span.
peace :)
then you misunderstood my point-Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
genetic similarity between humans and apples does not mean we evolved from an apple- it just means that all living things are made from the same ingriedients-just mixed in a different order- I agree with the fact that we are all related- but is it to hard to fathom that we were created by something greater then us? Like a Celestial Chef mixing things up to a taste he likes? The theroy that everything came from a single cell and kept growing and changing is a neat theroy, but it's just that a theroy- it hasn't been proven and can't be proven- just like it's impossible to back up the creation therory without having any hard scientific data-
So just like that it's a mystery- the one great mystery- we aren't meant to have the answeres for
like i siad there's no linking fossils or skeltons that relate us to bipedal primates- nothing that shows an "inbetween stage" of evoulution- there's no hard evidence that show native americans crossed the land bridge to be in north and south america- and the whole climate change thing effects skin color- if that were true then wouldn't the indians closer to the eqator resemble black people? hmm....
evolution in that sense is bullshit- basing everything of genetic mutations- if you have child with born with an extra arm and he mates with normal girl what are the chances of their child being born with an extra arm- I know evolution doesn't work quite like that and take millions of years but just think about it
How Evolution Works
Mutations are accidents in reproduction. The only place where such mutations can occur is in the production of the haploid cells (cells with a single set of chromosomes) in the sperm and egg, or in the joining of the two in conception. A reproduction accident anywhere else in the body will affect only the cell that suffers the accident. Such accidents will not be added into the gene pool and thus are not mutations. In such an accident, the sick cell is quickly replaced by a well one and the incident is over. Yet when such an accident occurs in the sperm or egg, it will appear in every cell in the offspring. This mutation then has a 50% chance of occurring in each grandchild. If the recipient of the mutation has several children, the odds are that the mutation will join the species gene pool by way of one or more of his children.
Natural selection then determines the fate of the mutation in the species gene pool. The test is not survivability or excellence. The test is in species population growth. If the mutation aids the growth of the species population then it is successful and will remain in the gene pool. If it does not, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool (through death and hardship).
Here are a few examples concerning man and evolution to help gain understanding of the way evolution works. The effects shown are not necessarily caused by genetics, but evolution treats all conditions as if they were. Note that natural selection acts as if all genes are involved in the success or failure of the individual. Each case that reduces the expected offspring is considered a vote against each gene in the genome. Each case that equals or exceeds the expected offspring is considered a vote for each gene in the genome. The mixing of genes in recombination allow individual allele selection over the long period of time.
Effect1: The new gene shortens the life to 35 years. Natural selection would not see this defect as detrimental since the children will be old enough to fend for themselves by that time.
Effect2: The parent has too many children. If so many children were born that the resulting death or misery rate reduced the number of the children who had children, evolution would see this as detrimental. If society takes care of his children for him they will be healthy enough to raise more children and evolution would judge the condition as beneficial
Effect3: The parent does not take good care of his children. If society does not interfere by taking care of the children for him, the suffering children are less likely to raise children of their own and evolution would judge that the condition is detrimental. If society cares for his children, evolution will judge the condition beneficial.
Effect4: The new gene lengthens life to 150 years. Evolution will not see this change as beneficial. Neither will it see later mutations that degrade it as detrimental, until the life expectancy gets so low that it affects child bearing and raising.
Effect5: The man is a murderer of children. His murder of someone else's children will affect the evaluation of the genes of their parents adversely. If the murderer has sufficient children of his own, evolution will not see anything detrimental in his lineage.
Effect6: The man is cruel and vicious with his wife. As long as he does not kill her or otherwise render her unable to care for her children, evolution will see no harm. Even if he kills her and society takes over the raising of his children, evolution will still see no harm
Effect7: The man dies of an accident before he has children. Natural selection will see this death as detrimental
Effect8: A young lady decides not to marry and have children. Natural selection will see this as detrimental.
Effect9: A man decides to adopt children instead of having his own. Natural selection will vote for the genes of the natural parents of the children and vote against the adoptive parent's gene set.
A great difference clearly exists between the goals of evolution and those of a compassionate culture. We are built one way, but we want to be another way. Luckily there is a large overlap where both evolution and man desire the same thing. Unfortunately, where we differ the choices are all quite painful
.................................................. .................................................. .........................................
What Is Human Evolution?
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...turkanaboy.jpg Human evolution is the theory which states that humans developed from primates, or ape-like, ancestors. In 1856, a strange skull was found by some workmen in the Neander Valley in Germany. The odd appearance of the skull led some to believe that it had once belonged to a person who was afflicted with rickets. They did not believe it could have come from an ancestor of modern man. It did, however, form the notion that there could have been creatures that were half-human and half-ape. Ernst Heinrich, a German scientist, claimed that if such a creature were ever found it should be named Pithecanthropus erectus, which means upright apeman.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...oiseiskull.jpg Even before the discovery of the skull, which is now known as Homo neanderthalensis, people hypothesized that there was some sort of transmutation took place between species. This, however, was not widely accepted. On November 4, 1859, the view on evolution as a whole changed dramatically. This was the date that Charles Darwin published his work The Origin of Species. With the release of this work, the theory of human evolution became a bit more believable. The theory of natural selection was proposed by Darwin within The Origin of Species. This theory states that the physical traits of an organism are selected for according to the environment it lives in.
Darwin's theory peaked the interest of many scientists who went out in search of skulls which would branch the gap between apes and humans. In 1890, a Dutch physician by the name of Eugene Dubois found a low, apelike skull on the banks of a river in Java. Dubois also discovered a humanlike thigh bone near the skull. He concluded that this creature was the link between apes and humans which Heinrich hypothesized about. Other fossils began to be found which appeared to be transitional.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...ages/taung.jpg In 1925, Raymond Dart found a skull which was the first to be classified as Australopithecus. The skull looked apelike in appearance, but had humanlike teeth. Dart discovered the skull in a box of fossilized bones sent to him from Tuang. Mary and Louis Leakey also found a number of Australopithecine fossils. The Leakey's main area of focus was the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. Another researcher, Donald Johanson, found similar fossils in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Johanson is credited with finding the fossil skeleton of "Lucy", an Australopithecus afarensis, which shows that ancestors of humans were walking upright at around 3.6 million years ago.
As the amount of finds increased, so did the number of species. Today, the Australopithecus genus includes:
- A. anemensis
- A. afarensis
- A. africanus
- A. boisei
- A. robustus
- A. aethiopicus
(A. is an abbreviation for Australopithecus)
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...es/habilis.jpg Even though these fossils had both human and ape characteristics, the apelike qualities outnumbered the human ones. Scientists sought to find fossils that were closer to modern man than the Australopithecines. In the early 1960's, Louis Leakey found what he thought was another A. boisei skull, however, the brain case was larger than previous finds. After collaboration with P.V. Tobias and J.R. Napier, he named the skull Homo habilis, which means "handy man". He came up with this name because of the tools found at the site of the skull. Leakey figured that the enlarged brain size made it possible for H. habilis to form tools according to how his/her mind perceived it should look like. Other species of this genus that were found include H. erectus, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, and our own species, H. sapiens sapiens.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...piensapien.jpgSome controversy concerning the labeling of H. sapiens neanderthalensis has arisen in past years, as to whether it should be considered part of the sapiens line. Previously, Neanderthals were considered to have been the transitory form from H. erectus to H. sapiens sapiens. The ideology then shifted to a position that Neanderthals were not a transitory form, but were instead a genetic dead end. Their abrupt disappearance in the fossil record has yielded suggestions that Neanderthals were outcompeted and replaced by anatomically modern human beings. The current viewpoint among many people is that Neanderthals were in fact a separate species and have been labeled by some as H. neanderthalensis, dropping "sapiens" from the name.
thier is proof linking skulls to us and aps..................as it shows
u see ape skull
u see human and ape characteristics in the next skull
and so on...as u look u can see how it is...how evolution worked
as the evirment changes
i need to see pictures- post them- showing them all in order-Quote:
Originally Posted by 100pr00f
guaranteed you won't find a picture that show skull that is between a man's and a monkeys
these skull you showed are of a different species other then human but do not prove that humans evloved from them- when I see those skulls I see different species- I don't see the human part of it-
you could post a skull of rat, then a skull of dog, the skull of a lion- and say- the rat evolved into the lion
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...ages/taung.jpg
here is one...it is a skull of a mix ....
its when we started to walk upright
http://www.chineseprehistory.org/cli...l/zkdrec1s.jpg This composite reconstruction of the skull of "Peking Man" has come to epitomize H. erectus as a distinct human species. In actual fact the reconstruction, done by Weidenreich and his associates, represents a female. Many features of the Zhoukoudian crania, such as their "beetle-brows," and various crests and ridges on the surface bone of the skull tend to differentiate the "Peking Man" material from other contemporaneous humans. These seem to be localized rather than species defining features
WOW! you convinced me
u are misunderstanding evolution adn over simplifying it tremendously.. thats why it isnt sitting well with uQuote:
Originally Posted by Charging Soldier
. so imagine u are born with a genetic mutation that causes your red blood cells to have a slightly different shape than normal red blood cells.. by chance, this mutataion is inheritable in your children.... your children then are born with this mutation... as an unexpected benefit, this mutation makesyour children immune to Malaria... this advantageous random mutation now has extreme survival value if you live in a Malaria rich environment... if u do, your offspring will inevitably (if everything goes right) have offspring that have a slight advantage over other humans who dont have this evolutionary advantage.. the end result is a population of homo sapiens that are immune to Malaria.. all due to a chance occurence of a genetic mutation.
Man on this planet has become what he has become because of a loss of intelligence. What you have is a beast within the body of an intelligent life form.
Mutations aren't inherited. I am not a gambler. LOL "by chance.."
on what planet do u live?Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
mutations are inherited all the time..what make su think they are not inheritable?
and yes.. chance and probability has a strong role in most of biology..
i have no why idea why ppl cant accept this. everything isnt planned out.. many things occur and are the way they are simply because of the role of the dice...
humans are here simply because a random chance event that wiped out the dinosaurs
People can't except evolution because the theory goes against it's self- if everything was the roll of the dice things would be more chaotic- if humans have been slowly evolving from primates then why are we the only creatures that evolved to have large brains cabable of choice? An animal can only run on instinct, while humans can choose what they want to do with their lives. A human can choose to only eat vegatables or make their diet of only meat, while animals have to go off of insticts- the instict hunt, or be a scavanger- the instinct to mate- A human can choose to go through life with out mating- we can choose not to eat and fast- why are we the only creatures that don't have to adhere to the instincts of the wild? The gift of a mind to make choices and choose what to do with our bodies and life is what makes us different from everything else that "evolved" i'm not saying evoultion didn't happen- it just didn't happen to humansQuote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs