Report, edit, etc...Posted by Do-0dan on 2006-01-31 at 00:18:09
XD humans couldve migrated all over the place after they evolved.....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2006-01-31 at 00:19:00
Humans took one route, the Apes took another. Both succeeded.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EdAi on 2006-01-31 at 00:22:04
exactly... all your points are well made, however, the facts show that some apes evolved, adpating to whatever surroundings, and some didn't
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-31 at 00:25:55
what im saying is that if supposedly the humans evolved from apes and the humans and apes were in the same place what would of trigged the evolution. since the apes are doing well off there is no reason why they should of evolved.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Do-0dan on 2006-01-31 at 00:29:28
yes... our attributes that we have now seem to be worthless
maybe the apes wanted to become smarter and comprehend things more to find food easier and faster or sumthin
maybe the apes wanted to become smarter and comprehend things more to find food easier and faster or sumthin
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EdAi on 2006-01-31 at 00:32:13
if they wanted that then they wouldn't've been able to want that, its confusing but with enough thot u'll get it, apes live(d) on instinct alone, and sie... how do u know they lived in the same place at the same time???
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-01-31 at 02:27:23
I can understand the Human-Ape scenario, but what about other species. The world is full of thousand (at least) of species, but in one area, if they all came from the same organism, why would there be different organisms in the same climate? Would one not falter and be worse off than the rest?
Also, Doodan, is someone else typing for you because I've not known you to type like that... ever.
Also, Doodan, is someone else typing for you because I've not known you to type like that... ever.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-31 at 04:10:29
QUOTE
and sie... how do u know they lived in the same place at the same time???
according to text books humans started off in africa. there were also apes in africa am i correct?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2006-01-31 at 07:58:54
Not the same part of Africa....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-01-31 at 08:02:05
You know how big Africa is? By your logic, only one organism is deemed worthy per climate. We can see that isn't true just by looking outside.
Kow, if you can accept Chimpanzee's relative to be Human's relative, then accepting that we all eventually came from one organism isn't too difficult. What exactly is the problem?
Heard of the Archaeopteryx? Perhaps a visit here would help.
Kow, if you can accept Chimpanzee's relative to be Human's relative, then accepting that we all eventually came from one organism isn't too difficult. What exactly is the problem?
Heard of the Archaeopteryx? Perhaps a visit here would help.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-01-31 at 17:45:50
If you did research on the main scientists and their investigations, you would realize how flawed the facts are. The idea of evolution is good, but the investigations that back it up are rather poor, such as the locations of where the bones were found and the distance between a single skeleton; or how some of the investigations, like the Neanderthal investigation, was conducted by a scientist wanting to prove evolution so he hired convicts to just go out into the Valley to dig up any bones they could find; or how some of the skeletons are animal bones that have simply been grinded to resemble something different. There's many more poorly conducted investigations I can't remember right now.
When the bones were finally placed together, the scientists wanted to prove evolution, so when they saw a skeleton with an arched back, they automatically thought that it was the missing link, nevermind the idea of an old man with arthritis. The scientists were set only on proving it, not disproving it.
Oh but heck with those investigations, I mean, is background really necessary when you got a great idea? After all, it couldn't be possible that there were humans billions of years ago.
Of course, evolution isn't all bad, it truly does have undeniable facts, and not every single investigation was poorly conducted. I just feel for the most part that evolution is a bit narrow, as is religion. Can't we think of more realistic ways we came to be here?
Here's my idea. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Just my thoughts. I would give credit to the guy who did find the holes in evolution, but I forgot his name and he brought up really good arguements against evolution, sorry to be forgetful.
When the bones were finally placed together, the scientists wanted to prove evolution, so when they saw a skeleton with an arched back, they automatically thought that it was the missing link, nevermind the idea of an old man with arthritis. The scientists were set only on proving it, not disproving it.
Oh but heck with those investigations, I mean, is background really necessary when you got a great idea? After all, it couldn't be possible that there were humans billions of years ago.
Of course, evolution isn't all bad, it truly does have undeniable facts, and not every single investigation was poorly conducted. I just feel for the most part that evolution is a bit narrow, as is religion. Can't we think of more realistic ways we came to be here?
Here's my idea. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Just my thoughts. I would give credit to the guy who did find the holes in evolution, but I forgot his name and he brought up really good arguements against evolution, sorry to be forgetful.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-01-31 at 18:07:17
There are no holes in evolution. Your argument has no evidence. I'm sure it's either extremely primitive data, wrong experiment, or it came from a religious site.
I would like to point out that evolution does not need to explain the origin of life. It seems too many people make this crazy assumption.
I would like to point out that evolution does not need to explain the origin of life. It seems too many people make this crazy assumption.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Stalingrad on 2006-01-31 at 18:14:20
Evolution doesn't explain where life came from... amino acids do
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-01-31 at 18:14:25
Primitive data - no
Wrong experiment - no
Religious site - no
I would supply my evidence if I could remember the guys name who found those problems.
Wrong experiment - no
Religious site - no
I would supply my evidence if I could remember the guys name who found those problems.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-01-31 at 18:35:55
QUOTE(Kow @ Jan 30 2006, 09:46 PM)
If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes around? (Sorry if this argument has been presented before)
[right][snapback]417243[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]417243[/snapback][/right]
I, procuress, am back and shall clarify more questions! Why are apes still around? There is only one reason.
Not all apes are the same. Some apes landed on the ground and became bipedal (standing two feet) and some stayed on tree for their own goodness. Only a little amount began their life on ground and became adapted to the ground. After a while, those on the ground became successful and flourished into even bigger population than other apes. Although humans were successful, the apes on tree didn't come down because their life became adapted to tree life. They are soon to become extinct of human behaviors, but they still exist yet.
QUOTE(HolySin @ Jan 31 2006, 05:45 PM)
If you did research on the main scientists and their investigations, you would realize how flawed the facts are. The idea of evolution is good, but the investigations that back it up are rather poor, such as the locations of where the bones were found and the distance between a single skeleton; or how some of the investigations, like the Neanderthal investigation, was conducted by a scientist wanting to prove evolution so he hired convicts to just go out into the Valley to dig up any bones they could find; or how some of the skeletons are animal bones that have simply been grinded to resemble something different. There's many more poorly conducted investigations I can't remember right now.
When the bones were finally placed together, the scientists wanted to prove evolution, so when they saw a skeleton with an arched back, they automatically thought that it was the missing link, nevermind the idea of an old man with arthritis. The scientists were set only on proving it, not disproving it.
Oh but heck with those investigations, I mean, is background really necessary when you got a great idea? After all, it couldn't be possible that there were humans billions of years ago.
Of course, evolution isn't all bad, it truly does have undeniable facts, and not every single investigation was poorly conducted. I just feel for the most part that evolution is a bit narrow, as is religion. Can't we think of more realistic ways we came to be here?
Here's my idea. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Just my thoughts. I would give credit to the guy who did find the holes in evolution, but I forgot his name and he brought up really good arguements against evolution, sorry to be forgetful.
[right][snapback]417608[/snapback][/right]
When the bones were finally placed together, the scientists wanted to prove evolution, so when they saw a skeleton with an arched back, they automatically thought that it was the missing link, nevermind the idea of an old man with arthritis. The scientists were set only on proving it, not disproving it.
Oh but heck with those investigations, I mean, is background really necessary when you got a great idea? After all, it couldn't be possible that there were humans billions of years ago.
Of course, evolution isn't all bad, it truly does have undeniable facts, and not every single investigation was poorly conducted. I just feel for the most part that evolution is a bit narrow, as is religion. Can't we think of more realistic ways we came to be here?
Here's my idea. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Just my thoughts. I would give credit to the guy who did find the holes in evolution, but I forgot his name and he brought up really good arguements against evolution, sorry to be forgetful.
[right][snapback]417608[/snapback][/right]
now, let me take this slow by slow and tell you how stupid your post sounded to me...
flawed facts... Since when were facts flawed? your ideas are completely dogmatic and invalid when there are complete set of proof that evolution occured.
rest of the first paragraph was a big run-on that i couldn't quite get hang of, but this is how i answer to your explanation in your standing;
Location of seperated bones is caused by migrations by people coming out of Africa. They were in small nomadic tribes to search food and find better land. During the travel, some died due to disease, famine, hunger, etc, etc. Not all died, but some died on the trail. That is why bones aren't located in big pockets. Also, there is general idea of where bones are located and that is around the coastal area. Many scientists believe that nomads from africa came around the Fertile Crescent, around through the to-be ancient mesopotamian civilization, around the coast of india, into china, through southeastern asia, and finally to Austrailia and America. Some on the way stayed where ever they were and made settlements there. Some slipped into Europe. Because only small amount of people made it all the way, there are only small amount of bones located on ground. Also, the dead bodies may have been washed away by the shores' waves. Who knows. but one thing im sure is that evolution occured.
Scientist that hired convicts is a dogmatic false information that i couldn't really find online. If you have any proof of scientist of that kind, I'll be more than glad to accept that he is a total idiot for doing that, although the findings still may be usable by science community to prove that evolution should be a law, not theory.
Skeleton grinded to fit the human? I also never ever heard of that, but I don't think scientists are stupid enough to fall for those kind of tricks. Bones are in different matters you know... Chicken bones and human bones are not the same.
Poorly conducted investigations is a very small majority of the real investigation. Im guessing about three to four percent? most information scientists use are proven fact and is essential to evolution.
Old man with arthritis? Arthritis is visible through a bare eye. holes in the bones aren't that hard to miss... Again, scientists would have noticed if it was recent old man. Also, there is carbon dating that we can rely upon, which is very accurate if you ask me.
Realistic way we are here? HolySin, are you aware that Evolution is scientifically proven by the scientific society? I mean evolution as the main part says that animals evolved around to better adapt the nature. Look at my previous examples. I don't think that evolution is a simple narrow religion like others out there. I think it is the true way of how the people came about.
Oh heck.. I got to do my homework... Ill be back tomorrow with more answering...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-31 at 18:52:36
if you take a look at the skeleton many peices are missing and the bones that still exist are very worn down. you cannot tell the species
Its like brontosaurus they believe it to be a differnt species untill they found out they put the wrong skull on the body.
QUOTE
Old man with arthritis? Arthritis is visible through a bare eye. holes in the bones aren't that hard to miss... Again, scientists would have noticed if it was recent old man. Also, there is carbon dating that we can rely upon, which is very accurate if you ask me.
i think this is a very good argument. the bones that the scientists find are broken and worn. carbon dating isnt as accurate as you think it is.
QUOTE
Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to ca 60,000 years.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-01-31 at 18:59:32
Why does everyone use the carbon dating method as "proof" that it isn't valid?
This dating technique is determined by checking the half-life of the atom. It has nothing to do with just carbon! It is accurate and it is reliable. There are other elements that people can use to verify.
Thus, your evidence will not be taken into account because it has no source.
This dating technique is determined by checking the half-life of the atom. It has nothing to do with just carbon! It is accurate and it is reliable. There are other elements that people can use to verify.
QUOTE
I would supply my evidence if I could remember the guys name who found those problems.
Thus, your evidence will not be taken into account because it has no source.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-01-31 at 20:42:29
Lucy was found in Hadar, Ethiopia; therefore, making it highly unlikely that some of her bones washed away. I didn't mean that the facts were flawed—sorry, got mixed up—rather than that the investigations for it were. Arthritis isn't that easy to find on very, very old skeletons. Eugene Dubois is the person who "found" the Neanderthal skeleton with convicts. The grinded skull was not major, but still an attempt to prove evolution. 60% of Lucy's skeleton is missing. I'm not saying that evolution is 100% false.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2006-01-31 at 23:00:25
Darwin was touched.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-01-31 at 23:21:35
With you, devilesk, this forum can never be serious... I had good laugh... Back to business...
Does 60% mean anything besides that her bones are just missing? Think of the environment. Some animal could have dragged it miles away making it look like a stray animal's bones. Arthritis is easy to find, actually. According to your examples, we wouldn't be looking for holes in the body, but the remaining dead blood cells that may contain genetic materials in there so we can prove that he/she had arthritis. Also, we wouldn't be looking through our backyard to find some hominid 20 million years ago, now would we?
Again, Dubois is one crazy idiot. Does this mean that all scientists are crazy like this? I don't think so.
When you are saying evolution isn't 100% false, you are also saying it isn't 100 % true. I agree with that only under one circumstance; that evolution does include beginning of lifeforms on earth. That maybe a falsified theoretical statement drawn from informational facts and maybe incorrect, but the evolution of animals to replace the weak and unfit with better specie is undeniable...
QUOTE(HolySin @ Jan 31 2006, 08:42 PM)
Lucy was found in Hadar, Ethiopia; therefore, making it highly unlikely that some of her bones washed away. I didn't mean that the facts were flawed—sorry, got mixed up—rather than that the investigations for it were. Arthritis isn't that easy to find on very, very old skeletons. Eugene Dubois is the person who "found" the Neanderthal skeleton with convicts. The grinded skull was not major, but still an attempt to prove evolution. 60% of Lucy's skeleton is missing. I'm not saying that evolution is 100% false.
[right][snapback]417818[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]417818[/snapback][/right]
Does 60% mean anything besides that her bones are just missing? Think of the environment. Some animal could have dragged it miles away making it look like a stray animal's bones. Arthritis is easy to find, actually. According to your examples, we wouldn't be looking for holes in the body, but the remaining dead blood cells that may contain genetic materials in there so we can prove that he/she had arthritis. Also, we wouldn't be looking through our backyard to find some hominid 20 million years ago, now would we?
Again, Dubois is one crazy idiot. Does this mean that all scientists are crazy like this? I don't think so.
When you are saying evolution isn't 100% false, you are also saying it isn't 100 % true. I agree with that only under one circumstance; that evolution does include beginning of lifeforms on earth. That maybe a falsified theoretical statement drawn from informational facts and maybe incorrect, but the evolution of animals to replace the weak and unfit with better specie is undeniable...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2006-01-31 at 23:58:56
QUOTE
With you, devilesk, this forum can never be serious... I had good laugh... Back to business...
I was guided by the will of CheeZe.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-02-01 at 00:01:39
QUOTE
I was guided by the will of CheeZe.
It figures...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2006-02-01 at 15:23:05
Though creationists may deny evolution, they cannot at all, ever, deny Natural Selection, the basis of evolution. Why can they not deny Natural Selection? Because they can go conduct the damned experiment themselves. Y'see, when two people that are Cystic Fibrosis carriers have a baby, the baby has Cystic Fibrosis. The baby dies, and thus, does not live to reproduce and give even more people CF.
Now, when two people in say, africa, with sickle-cell, have a baby, the baby has sickle cell. The sickle-cell saves the baby from malaria. The baby survives, grows up, and has more babies, and less people get malaria, and fewer people die. The sickle-cell gene becomes more prominent. The ones with the bad genes die, the ones with the good genes live. Natural selection.
If you want further proof of what selection can do, you can go look up different types of dog breeds and horse breeds.
Now, when two people in say, africa, with sickle-cell, have a baby, the baby has sickle cell. The sickle-cell saves the baby from malaria. The baby survives, grows up, and has more babies, and less people get malaria, and fewer people die. The sickle-cell gene becomes more prominent. The ones with the bad genes die, the ones with the good genes live. Natural selection.
If you want further proof of what selection can do, you can go look up different types of dog breeds and horse breeds.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-02-01 at 17:12:02
QUOTE(Snake)Ling @ Feb 1 2006, 03:23 PM)
Though creationists may deny evolution, they cannot at all, ever, deny Natural Selection, the basis of evolution. Why can they not deny Natural Selection? Because they can go conduct the damned experiment themselves. Y'see, when two people that are Cystic Fibrosis carriers have a baby, the baby has Cystic Fibrosis. The baby dies, and thus, does not live to reproduce and give even more people CF.
Now, when two people in say, africa, with sickle-cell, have a baby, the baby has sickle cell. The sickle-cell saves the baby from malaria. The baby survives, grows up, and has more babies, and less people get malaria, and fewer people die. The sickle-cell gene becomes more prominent. The ones with the bad genes die, the ones with the good genes live. Natural selection.
If you want further proof of what selection can do, you can go look up different types of dog breeds and horse breeds.
[right][snapback]418203[/snapback][/right]
Now, when two people in say, africa, with sickle-cell, have a baby, the baby has sickle cell. The sickle-cell saves the baby from malaria. The baby survives, grows up, and has more babies, and less people get malaria, and fewer people die. The sickle-cell gene becomes more prominent. The ones with the bad genes die, the ones with the good genes live. Natural selection.
If you want further proof of what selection can do, you can go look up different types of dog breeds and horse breeds.
[right][snapback]418203[/snapback][/right]
True. I agree... But you see, Snake)Ling, the evolution is not that simple of a term. Where does the term evolution begin and end? There is no exact boudaries on what evolution says. Is evolution just a simple theory surrounding the endoskeleton of natural selection, or does it even explain how the life on earth was formed?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2006-02-01 at 17:39:21
QUOTE(procuress @ Feb 1 2006, 06:12 PM)
or does it even explain how the life on earth was formed?
[right][snapback]418310[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]418310[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE
I could ask you the same question on whatever idea you have. However, evolution does not need to explain the origin of life. Simply because we don't know the beginning does not mean we don't know the process.
QUOTE
I would like to point out that evolution does not need to explain the origin of life. It seems too many people make this crazy assumption.
There, that answers that question.