Christine O'donnell - Why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

[garebear]

God doesn't know how long a year is? Seems like he might be able to figure that one out, buddy.

[garebear]

I doubt she knows the difference.

Where the hell have you been?

[Soul Crusher]

Where the hell have you been?

TBH - she can believe anything as far as I care, its how she will vote that I care about. 

[garebear]

I meant Deicide. I haven't seen that SN in over a year.

[BM OUT]

this isn't an obama thread.

I wouldn't go on a cancer thread and say "come on guys, cancer isn't as bad as heart disease!"



It's funny seeing which getbiggers believe in fairy tales and ignore science.  It's awesome.

Not as funny as an idiot who thinks the country will love the health care bill and run on it.

[Hugo Chavez]

Shock shock, Another dipshit shooting his mouth off without even a basic understanding of evolution.  Not counting Brock Lesner, I've never seen a half human half ape either and nobody that understands evolution would expect to!

Glenn Beck calls evolution 'ridiculous,' says he's never seen a half-human, half-monkey

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/21/2010-10-21_glenn_beck_calls_evolution_ridiculous_says_hes_never_seen_a_halfhuman_halfmonkey.html

[tonymctones]

Shock shock, Another dipshit shooting his mouth off without even a basic understanding of evolution.  Not counting Brock Lesner, I've never seen a half human half ape either and nobody that understands evolution would expect to!

Glenn Beck calls evolution 'ridiculous,' says he's never seen a half-human, half-monkey

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/21/2010-10-21_glenn_beck_calls_evolution_ridiculous_says_hes_never_seen_a_halfhuman_halfmonkey.html

LOL I have a close friend who doesnt believe in evolution but refuses to look into it b/c he is afraid it will challenge his current views? really???

he like most ppl who have no clue about evolution think that we came from monkeys...anybody that believes that has obviously not done any research into evolution

[Dos Equis]

Spot on Beck.     He's talking about macroevolution.  The "monkey business" is ridiculous. 

[Dos Equis]

LOL I have a close friend who doesnt believe in evolution but refuses to look into it b/c he is afraid it will challenge his current views? really???

he like most ppl who have no clue about evolution think that we came from monkeys...anybody that believes that has obviously not done any research into evolution

Sort of sounds like the people who are afraid to look at the gaping holes in macroevolution.   

[tonymctones]

Sort of sounds like the people who are afraid to look at the gaping holes in macroevolution.   

such as?

I hate the term Macro evolution...

do you agree that ppl 100 yrs ago were different/looked different even slightly then they do today?

[tonymctones]

Sort of sounds like the people who are afraid to look at the gaping holes in macroevolution.   

let me see if i can explain the term macro evolution is a man made concept same as the term "species" and what differentiates a species from others...

just b/c we say this species is defined by this doesnt place a limit on the evolution that species. Its a man made concept and nature is not limited by it.

think about it like this the previous species that lead to the modern day humans are basically humans but from millions of years ago. The idea that a species cant evolve into another species is incorrect after all we created the term species and created the criteria for each species.

We could very well narrow the criteria for a certain species and create more than one...

iono if i explained that very well lol

[Dos Equis]

such as?

I hate the term Macro evolution...

do you agree that ppl 100 yrs ago were different/looked different even slightly then they do today?

Such as:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0

I have no problem with the terms macroevolution or microevolution.  

If you're asking me whether I believe in neanderthals, the answer is (other than a few people on the board), "no."    The earliest humans looked like humans.  That's what the fossil record shows.  That's one of the gaping holes in macroevolution and precisely what Beck was talking about.  From both a scientific and common sense standpoint, the archeological record should be full of transitional fossils (if macroevolution is true).  But it isn't.  

[tonymctones]

Such as:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0

I have no problem with the terms macroevolution or microevolution.  

If you're asking me whether I believe in neanderthals, the answer is (other than a few people on the board), "no."    The earliest humans looked like humans.  That's what the fossil record shows.  That's one of the gaping holes in macroevolution and precisely what Beck was talking about.  From both a scientific and common sense standpoint, the archeological record should be full of transitional fossils (if macroevolution is true).  But it isn't.  

actually the fossil record is full of transitional fossils that show a logical progression from millions of years ago to about 250k years ago which is when modern humans developed.

modern humans didnt show up until about 250k yrs ago, why are there no modern human remains prior to that?

again macro is a man made term as is species just b/c a man says that a species is defined by this and this doesnt mean that nature will automatically stop evolution at that limit...

the idea of species is a man made concept and shouldnt bear any weight in the idea of evolution as whole.

what does nature care about our idea of species? it doesnt and will continue to to evolve until WE deem that if has changed so much that it is no longer the same species...

its actually the same thing just a different version is all...we just call it different species to make it easier on us...

[Dos Equis]

actually the fossil record is full of transitional fossils that show a logical progression from millions of years ago to about 250k years ago which is when modern humans developed.

modern humans didnt show up until about 250k yrs ago, why are there no modern human remains prior to that?

again macro is a man made term as is species just b/c a man says that a species is defined by this and this doesnt mean that nature will automatically stop evolution at that limit...

the idea of species is a man made concept and shouldnt bear any weight in the idea of evolution as whole.

what does nature care about our idea of species? it doesnt and will continue to to evolve until WE deem that if has changed so much that it is no longer the same species...

its actually the same thing just a different version is all...we just call it different species to make it easier on us...

Tony every aspect of our language (terms, concepts, etc.) is manmade.  Not sure I understand your point? 

I disagree about transitional fossils.  They don't exist.  The oldest fossil of a man is a man.  Oldest fossil of a giraffe is a giraffe.  Etc. 

[tonymctones]

Tony every aspect of our language (terms, concepts, etc.) is manmade.  Not sure I understand your point?  

I disagree about transitional fossils.  They don't exist.  The oldest fossil of a man is a man.  Oldest fossil of a giraffe is a giraffe.  Etc.  

correct but nature and its operations are not man made is my point. Evolution is not man made it is nature you agree with "micro" evolution...the thing is that there really is no difference between "micro" and "macro". The idea of macro evolution is based of our concepts of species and their individual criteria. We could narrow our definition(b/c we made it) of what a modern human is and not have modern human remains until a say 25k yrs ago breaking down into more species or broaden them and have them 2 million years ago breaking down into less species...

since when does nature submit to man made concepts?

just b/c we label some species with certain criteria doesnt mean that evolution will stop at those limits...b/c nature doesnt submit to man made concepts. Ppl act like simply b/c we said this is a dog or cat and gave criteria for them that nature and is process of evolution will stop at tose limits that we have come up with.

right the oldest fossil of a man is a man but the oldest fossil of a man is about 250k yrs old...

the thing is creatures have been on this earth for millions of years, so why have no modern human remains been found that are older than 250k? there are however fossils that look very much like modern humans that are slightly different that are older and some that are alot like those but slightly different that are older and so on and so on...

ill post a timeline of the fossil record when i get home today.

[garebear]

 ..

[blacken700]

 

[Soul Crusher]

More comedians.   They should start calling the Dem party the "The Joker party". 

[blacken700]

[loco]

such as?

I hate the term Macro evolution...

do you agree that ppl 100 yrs ago were different/looked different even slightly then they do today?

From TalkOrigins.org

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"

"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[loco]

If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists?  Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it?  They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth.  They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.

"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution

[tonymctones]

correct sir but again we are the ones who defined what each species entails...so what makes you think that evolution stops at the criteria we define for each species...

there is no difference between macro and micro in terms of nature...only in our definitions of whether it fits within our defined criteria for that species our goes outside of it...

why do you think that nature and the processes of natural selection would stop at the definitions of man?

[tonymctones]

If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists?  Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it?  They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth.  They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.

LOL broham there are always going to be some ppl who dont agree, you can find ppl that think 9/11 was done with holograms but that doesnt make it so...

the vast vast majority of scientist agree with evolution and yes macro evolution even if they find some flaws in the inner workings of the theory, they still agree with the overall concept.

evolution through natural selections, migration, mutation takes many many things to happen first and foremost is time. If modern humans havent changed in 250k yrs what makes you think that you will see a overnight change in your lifetime?

second is an enviroment that lends itself to change otherwise the new trait wont be beneficial and wont survive...what has changed enviromentally over the course of modern man?

please guys look at this with an objective stance and strip away your preconcieved notions and bias. Do some legit research dont get facts from ppl with agendas.

[Option D]

correct sir but again we are the ones who defined what each species entails...so what makes you think that evolution stops at the criteria we define for each species...

there is no difference between macro and micro in terms of nature...only in our definitions of whether it fits within our defined criteria for that species our goes outside of it...

why do you think that nature and the processes of natural selection would stop at the definitions of man?
Well to be honest, the concept is o far reaching for man to grasp. Remember it was thought that the planets rotated around the earth. It is difficult to think that we arent the end all be all to the universe. Its only Logical to accept that if man is defined as a mammal and mammals have different species that are products of evolution over millions of years, that man would be in that same category. Evolution process is slow..but there is still evidence of its presense. Take for instance the average womens weight hight and shoe size from 100 years ago and compare it to now...there is a drastic evololution.  

[tonymctones]

^^^^^

I agree and their are studies that show many culture becoming more lactose intolerant b/c they stop producing something in their bodies as a result of not drinking milk as much...

my problem is with the idea that the evolutionary process is all of a sudden going to stop and the man made idea of what a species is...

Im not saying I agree with everything evolution and its concepts say but its just a false idea to think that b/c man says that this species is defined by this that evolution and its process will simply stop at that point and no longer evolve.

macro and micro evolution are the same thing they are evolution one is simply looked at on a smaller scale and one a larger.

the theory of evolution makes none NOT ONE ascertion about creation, so the idea that evolution goes against religion christianity specifically is crazy to me.