Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: EwaBeachBoy on February 06, 2009, 12:06:40 AM
-
-
Lol, how old is he, 16?... and he's got it all figured out. Very funny listening to a kid say science is closed minded... Like the faith crowd is wildly open to the possibilities outside their little black book ::) That's sticking your finger in your ear and going lalalalala...
-
Evolution via natural selection is fact. Forget about monkeys and apes, you might find it more disturbing that your great great ... ancestor was a vole-like critter.
-
Evolution via natural selection is fact. Forget about monkeys and apes, you might find it more disturbing that your great great ... ancestor was a vole-like critter.
Remember Nordic, evolution is based on life progressively getting more and more complex. Our first relatives were infinitely simpler. Humans have 46 chromosomes. I no longer eat wheat or potatoes since they contain 42 and 48 chromosomes. Hey, I'm no cannibal. They could be our long distant ancestors according to evolution ::) I can't comprehend how people buy into the fact that we evolved from some lightning and a few elements floating around in water into self aware, intelligent creatures able to distinguish wrong from right placed on a planet filled with scientific laws and constants that make it perfect for sustaining life.
-
Remember Nordic, evolution is based on life progressively getting more and more complex. Our first relatives were infinitely simpler. Humans have 46 chromosomes. I no longer eat wheat or potatoes since they contain 42 and 48 chromosomes. Hey, I'm no cannibal. They could be our long distant ancestors according to evolution ::) I can't comprehend how people buy into the fact that we evolved from some lightning and a few elements floating around in water into self aware, intelligent creatures able to distinguish wrong from right placed on a planet filled with scientific laws and constants that make it perfect for sustaining life.
are you serious or is this a joke?
-
Remember Nordic, evolution is based on life progressively getting more and more complex. Our first relatives were infinitely simpler. Humans have 46 chromosomes. I no longer eat wheat or potatoes since they contain 42 and 48 chromosomes. Hey, I'm no cannibal. They could be our long distant ancestors according to evolution ::) I can't comprehend how people buy into the fact that we evolved from some lightning and a few elements floating around in water into self aware, intelligent creatures able to distinguish wrong from right placed on a planet filled with scientific laws and constants that make it perfect for sustaining life.
Organisms don't necessarily get more complex, although generally they do. This is what appears to happen in complex arms races (predator / prey relationships). Even our earliest ancestors were not "infinitely" simpler; you cannot have an infinite number of finite things.
Number of chromosomes doesn't equate linearly to the complexity of an organism for example horses have 32 pairs of chromosomes or 64 in total.
I think the potato branch of the tree of life may have split too early for it to be our ancestor, but it's a fact we do share an ancestor somewhere down the line. Correlating numbers of chromosomes doesn't make each organism equal in complexity.
Hope this information helps you see the light.
-
Organisms don't necessarily get more complex, although generally they do. This is what appears to happen in complex arms races (predator / prey relationships). Even our earliest ancestors were not "infinitely" simpler; you cannot have an infinite number of finite things.
Number of chromosomes doesn't equate linearly to the complexity of an organism for example horses have 32 pairs of chromosomes or 64 in total.
I think the potato branch of the tree of life may have split too early for it to be our ancestor, but it's a fact we do share an ancestor somewhere down the line. Correlating numbers of chromosomes doesn't make each organism equal in complexity.
Hope this information helps you see the light.
the simplicity of his logic should have told you a reply wouldn't be worth your time.
-
The evolution theory was already known long before Darwin, by some people. Knowledge known by a small number of people, are passed along true the ages.
-
The evolution theory was already known long before Darwin, by some people. Knowledge known by a small number of people, are passed along true the ages.
please expand. I think you're right but not many mention this.
-
Theory of evolution?
Evolution isn't a theory. Evolution is a natural process. Natural selection is the theory (of many explaining evolution) that explains the process and biological mechanisms behind evolution.
Natural selection was described above and beyond anyone else by C. Darwin.
-
Theory of evolution?
Evolution isn't a theory. Evolution is a natural process. Natural selection is the theory (of many explaining evolution) that explains the process and biological mechanisms behind evolution.
Natural selection was described above and beyond anyone else by C. Darwin.
no, I think freespirt was going where nobody goes. We know what you just said.
-
I took a crap this morning
For you evolutionist, did I poop out a distant relative?
I guess everything we are eating is a distant relative then? The apples, the chickens, the brocolli, the cows, the bulls, ect
Evolution is making a monkey out of you!
-
God is also making a monkey out of us as our DNA 98% the same.
Physically we are as about as unique as a 2008 BMW is to a 2009 BMW.
-
Thats because there are different designs but same "Designer"
Also its been proven that all humans came from one woman.
If evolution is real and we did come from monkeys, why is it that they cant prove that humans and apes came from the same woman?
-
Breakin the Law? Breaking the Law?? ???
-
Breakin the Law? Breaking the Law?? ???
I have an irresistible urge to bust that kid's nose in the above video.
Breakin the Law? Breaking the Law ;D
-
Remember Nordic, evolution is based on life progressively getting more and more complex. Our first relatives were infinitely simpler. Humans have 46 chromosomes. I no longer eat wheat or potatoes since they contain 42 and 48 chromosomes. Hey, I'm no cannibal. They could be our long distant ancestors according to evolution ::) I can't comprehend how people buy into the fact that we evolved from some lightning and a few elements floating around in water into self aware, intelligent creatures able to distinguish wrong from right placed on a planet filled with scientific laws and constants that make it perfect for sustaining life.
Evolution isn't about increased complexity. Not that the number of chromosomes equals complexity.
Even though potatoes, and all life on earth, is related to humans...eating potatoes doesn't make you a cannibal.
-
Thats because there are different designs but same "Designer"
Also its been proven that all humans came from one woman.
If evolution is real and we did come from monkeys, why is it that they cant prove that humans and apes came from the same woman?
Bullshit. I was listening on the radio about how there is a type of Caterpillar that can put out scents so that ants think it is an ant queen. The ants take it into their ant bed and feed it and protect it, even feeding their ant young to the Caterpillar. The Caterpillar will live in the ant bed for up to 2 years until it grows out and turns into a butter fly.
The question....Why the fuck would an infinitely powerful God make such a Caterpillar? What's the point of all of this? A larger question would be why a God would make all of the incredibly diversity in life on earth. Why not make thinks much simpler and not so suggestive of evolution?
As far as EVE goes. Scientists have found the CHROMOSOMAL EVE. This means that they went back and found 1 woman living in Africa many thousands of years ago that most humans came from. This doesn't mean that this 1 woman was as far back as there was, it was just as far back as they could go with DNA tracing. Obviously that 1 woman had a mother, and so forth.
::)
-
I dont want Breakin' the law! Breakin' the law! to be my legacy on getbig! :'(
-
I dont want Breakin' the law! Breakin' the law! to be my legacy on getbig! :'(
to late, good job ;D
-
please expand. I think you're right but not many mention this.
I've been reading about that in this book called The Secret History of the World, by Jonathan Black.
-
Thats because there are different designs but same "Designer"
Also its been proven that all humans came from one woman.
If evolution is real and we did come from monkeys, why is it that they cant prove that humans and apes came from the same woman?
no it hasn't.
-
LOL first off evolution doesnt state we came from monkeys it says that we and monkeys have a distant relative we didnt come from monkeys and monkeys didnt come from us. Second it has not been proven that we have come from a single female there is a theory out there that plays this scenario but you overlook the fact that in that scenario the "female" isnt a modern day homo sapien meaning that even it that theory was correct it would still mean we evolved from the species she was into homo sapiens.
-
P.S. that guy is a raging jack ass, what i think is absolutely hillarious is how ppl who have never studied evolution or heard anything about it other then on the internet via youtube or t.v. or religious friends are so adament it is not true.
-
LOL first off evolution doesnt state we came from monkeys it says that we and monkeys have a distant relative we didnt come from monkeys and monkeys didnt come from us. Second it has not been proven that we have come from a single female there is a theory out there that plays this scenario but you overlook the fact that in that scenario the "female" isnt a modern day homo sapien meaning that even it that theory was correct it would still mean we evolved from the species she was into homo sapiens.
wow, good post. most miss this simple point or just flat out ignore it. For these guys to show a monkey and say evolution says we came from a monkey isn't correct at all.
-
wow i just watched the second video and this guy is even a bigger retard then i first thought...he first says that the big bang and evolution are synomous with one another which is just ignorant. Also believes the earth is 6000 yrs old b/c of population ignores factors that restricted population in the past I.E. malthus's research.
Nothing will ever change this guys mind b/c the "past is in the past and isnt testable" ::)
-
wow, good post. most miss this simple point or just flat out ignore it. For these guys to show a monkey and say evolution says we came from a monkey isn't correct at all.
At one point one of our ancestors was a monkey, and at another point it was an ape like creature which recently branched into us and other closely related hominids and chimpanzees.
Humans have relatively little genetic diversity which leads you to believe recently in our history our populations was dangerously low. It is a fact that all living humans share a single most recent common ancestor; "Mitochondrial Eve".
From wikipedia:
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. Passed down from mother to offspring, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times.
She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania.
Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.
-
At one point one of our ancestors was a monkey, and at another point it was an ape like creature which recently branched into us and other closely related hominids and chimpanzees.
Humans have relatively little genetic diversity which leads you to believe recently in our history our populations was dangerously low. It is a fact that all living humans share a single most recent common ancestor; "Mitochondrial Eve".
From wikipedia:
we were never monkeys nor apes we have a common ancestor that may have looked like a monkey/ape but taxonomically where not monkeys or apes, we as homo sapiens didnt spawn from monkeys or apes in the evolution context.
Mitochondrial eve is still debated or was at least when i took my last anthropology class.
-
we were never monkeys nor apes we have a common ancestor that may have looked like a monkey/ape but taxonomically where not monkeys or apes, we as homo sapiens didnt spawn from monkeys or apes in the evolution context.
Mitochondrial eve is still debated or was at least when i took my last anthropology class.
Well we had a monkey-like ancestor that would indistinguishable from a monkey. We certainly have been and are apes.
-
God is also making a monkey out of us as our DNA 98% the same.
Physically we are as about as unique as a 2008 BMW is to a 2009 BMW.
No, it isn't. Human DNA and monkey DNA is not 98% the same.
-
Well we had a monkey-like ancestor that would indistinguishable from a monkey. We certainly have been and are apes.
The problem is that many people think that Chimpanzees are monkeys.
-
No, it isn't. Human DNA and monkey DNA is not 98% the same.
Ape then :)
-
Ape then :)
Not all apes, but yeah, Chimpanzees are apes and monkeys are not. :)
-
Well we had a monkey-like ancestor that would indistinguishable from a monkey. We certainly have been and are apes.
I think you're missing the basic point there nordic
-
I think you're missing the basic point there nordic
Which is? Under all known taxonomy of today our common ancestor with monkeys would be classified as a monkey. We have ancestors that were apes, and we very much still are apes.
-
Not all apes, but yeah, Chimpanzees are apes and monkeys are not. :)
Thanks. :)
-
Which is? Under all known taxonomy of today our common ancestor with monkeys would be classified as a monkey. We have ancestors that were apes, and we very much still are apes.
taxonomically they wouldnt be the same species so to say we evolved from monkeys or apes is inaccurate...maybe is a difference in definitions of apes and monkeys. I understand what your saying but to say that we as humans derived from modern day monkeys or gorillas or another ape is inaccurate we have a common ancestor they are brothers to us not fathers phylogenically speaking.
-
taxonomically they wouldnt be the same species so to say we evolved from monkeys or apes is inaccurate...maybe is a difference in definitions of apes and monkeys. I understand what your saying but to say that we as humans derived from modern day monkeys or gorillas or another ape is inaccurate we have a common ancestor they are brothers to us not fathers phylogenically speaking.
Taxonomically they would be MONKEYS. Humans evolved very recently. To say we evolved from what would taxonomically be known as a monkey is a fact, as is humans being apes.
I never once said we evolved from monkeys that exist today. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees however which was an ape as are we.
-
Taxonomically they would be MONKEYS. Humans evolved very recently. To say we evolved from what would taxonomically be known as a monkey is a fact, as is humans being apes.
I never once said we evolved from monkeys that exist today. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees however which was an ape as are we.
i think thats the problem, you hear ppl say "ive never seen a monkey turn into a man" but they dont understand that evolution doesnt state that we as men evolved from modern day monkeys or apes only that we have a recent common ancestor thats what i was trying to point out.
-
I have an irresistible urge to bust that kid's nose in the above video.
Breakin the Law? Breaking the Law ;D
HAHA
-
(http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/gkkeBHHUE9PH25tO.jpg)
-
This really makes me doubt evolution, that is, why is evolution not occurring now?...Man and other creatures seem to have stopped evolving...Did evolution run out?...Or is there evidence that man is evolving in to some other life form?
GC
-
This really makes me doubt evolution, that is, why is evolution not occurring now?...Man and other creatures seem to have stopped evolving...Did evolution run out?...Or is there evidence that man is evolving in to some other life form?
GC
Are you serious? The amount of time for the evolution of man is was 6 billion years, organisms are still evolving to this day but except for some primitive life forms the process is way to slow from a Human perspective to notice the changes. The time scales we are talking about are huge, a single lifetime is nothing.
-
This really makes me doubt evolution, that is, why is evolution not occurring now?...Man and other creatures seem to have stopped evolving...Did evolution run out?...Or is there evidence that man is evolving in to some other life form?
GC
WRONG.
Evolution can't be seen in every day life unless you pay CLOSE attention. For animals like humans, it takes THOUSANDS of years to see any real differences.
It's not something you see in a lifetime.
Haha.
But if you have a good microscope and a lot of time on your hands, you can observe various changes in really quickly multiplying creatures like bacteria or even fruit flies.
Are humans evolving right now? I don't know. Probably. Remember that there needs to be "natural selection" where as some people have more babies than others and over time those types of people exist more.
One hypothesis:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1597642154209383351
Remember, Evolution doesn't always mean "bigger, faster, stronger, smarter". It's all about who has more babies.
If, in our society, the strong, fast, intelligent and healthy people have less babies than the stupid, weak, lazy and ignorant people then in the future there will be more stupid,weak, lazy ignorant people in the world.
-
WRONG.
Hey my friend, I'm new here...I don't mind discussing this with u guys, however, I prefer to keep it civil...I'm like everybody else...Really would like to get to the bottom of it, the truth...Doesn't matter to me who is right or wrong...I just want the truth...
Evolution can't be seen in every day life unless you pay CLOSE attention. For animals like humans, it takes THOUSANDS of years to see any real differences.
It's not something you see in a lifetime.
I hear ya on that, however, isn't there thousands of fossil records on hand that date way back, perhaps, thousands of years?. Here's an interesting statement made by Francis Hitching “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change.Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”
But if you have a good microscope and a lot of time on your hands, you can observe various changes in really quickly multiplying creatures like bacteria or even fruit flies.
Is there any evidence in these observations that indicate one kind transforming into a completely different kind?
If, in our society, the strong, fast, intelligent and healthy people have less babies than the stupid, weak, lazy and ignorant people then in the future there will be more stupid,weak, lazy ignorant people in the world.
It seems like if that were to be the scenario, Darwin's speculation of "the fittest survive" would not work?...
-
Are you serious?
*LOL*...I'm trying to be my friend...
The amount of time for the evolution of man is was 6 billion years, organisms are still evolving to this day but except for some primitive life forms the process is way to slow from a Human perspective to notice the changes. The time scales we are talking about are huge, a single lifetime is nothing.
I've never been able to find where it is stated as fact that human evolution took 6 billion years...do u have the evidence of that...I'm not second guessing, just would like to see the evidence...
GC
-
I hear ya on that, however, isn't there thousands of fossil records on hand that date way back, perhaps, thousands of years?. Here's an interesting statement made by Francis Hitching “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change.Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”
Is there any evidence in these observations that indicate one kind transforming into a completely different kind?
It seems like if that were to be the scenario, Darwin's speculation of "the fittest survive" would not work?...
Actually if you look at the fossil records there is a fairly clear progression from earlier ancestors to our current form. Its not like you see a clear cut transformation but you see one form and then you find another form that is slightly like the last but a tad bit different and determined to be younger what do you suppose happend? LOL its clear from fossil records that we have evolved over thousands of years nordic was trying to say that everything has evolved from the past 6 billion years, humans as what would be classified as humans have only been around for i believe about 250,000 yrs.
In all reasonable likelihood you wouldnt really see a change from one to another in the course of our lifetime. Heres the deal you always see those anti bacterial soap commercials that say kills "99.9" percent of bacteria well that .01 percent lives on and will reproduce sooner or later creating a form of bacteria resistent to that soap...EVOLUTION.
Survival of the fitest doesnt mean the fastest, strongest, smartest...it means the most fit to survive in that atmosphere. If it gets really cold fatter ppl will probably suvive and breed more then skinny ppl so in that atmosphere fat ppl would be the fittest.
-
I hear ya on that, however, isn't there thousands of fossil records on hand that date way back, perhaps, thousands of years?
There are fossils dating back hundreds of millions of years. Some even over a billion years.
Here's an interesting statement made by Francis Hitching “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change.
You're talking about "Phyletic gradualism" vs. "Punctuated equilibrium". Evolution can change speeds depending on the rate of mutation and the amount of natural selection occurring.
Example: The Cambrian explosion.
Evolutionary theory doesn't state that all evolution occurs at the same gradual rate. This is an outdated concept that even Darwin didn't agree with. In short: A strawman.
But either way, Evolution occurring gradually or evolution occurring every now and then in leaps and bounds is evolution.
Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving.
Yes and No. DNA does have built in error correction functions that work to fix mutations as they occur, but this isn't 100% reliable and only really serves to "smooth over" mutations leaving changes still in the DNA. Mutations occur, this is a proven fact. Most mutations have no real effect, some are dangerous but some are beneficial. The beneficial mutations are more likely to spread through a population, and thus evolution.
Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”[/i]
Yes it can.
Simple as that. In fact, nothing BUT random mutations naturally selected can explain the complexity of life.
Is there any evidence in these observations that indicate one kind transforming into a completely different kind?
Define "kind".
This word "kind" is a weasel word used by creationists because it's used in the King James version of genesis. Scientists don't use the word "kind" to classify species.
There is plenty of examples of direct observation of "speciation", One species changing into another species through evolution (or through artificial selection such as in lifestock or pets).
There are also plenty of examples of indirect observations of change occurring above the genus, family, class and even phylum and above in the fossil record.
It seems like if that were to be the scenario, Darwin's speculation of "the fittest survive" would not work?...
You're confused.
The term "fittest" doesn't mean fittest like people use it today. "Fittest" simply means the individual capable of producing the most offspring. A super strong, intelligent, fast and handsome man who has defects to his reproductive organs making him impotent is not the "fittest" in an evolutionary sense simply because he can't reproduce.
In some situations being strong and smart and fast would help in reproduction, but in some other situations it doesn't help at all and might even hurt. For instance, studies have proven that people who are more intelligent tend to have less sex and produce less offspring, and the more intelligent people are the less offspring they produce.
-
*LOL*...I'm trying to be my friend...
I've never been able to find where it is stated as fact that human evolution took 6 billion years...do u have the evidence of that...I'm not second guessing, just would like to see the evidence...
GC
Well, the earth is 4.5 bil years old so yes the figure is wrong (I was thinking of human population I think). The first organism probably existed 3 billion years ago, so through the evolutionary pathway we have come through it has took 3 billion years.