Originally posted by skinbin
if evolution is true, then how come there are still monkes and apes around today?
Why should there not be?
surely if evolution was in existance and still is, then the creatures that we supposedly evolved from would have evolved themselves into extinction.
You obviously have no understanding of evolution. We did not evolve from monkeys or apes. We evolved from a common ancestor, from which apes evolved as well, but not as far.
the theory is that evolution takes place over millions of years, and so if it was true, then surely there would be those still evolving and are 'part human - part ape'. this isn't possible.
I have no idea what this means. Our common ancestor died out. Apes are still evolving and may one day become a species which is considered human-like (communication, technological know-how, morals etc.).
the term evolution means to get better/ to improve/ to become superior and move beyond a previous, inferior form. animals have instincts and can sense when natural disasters are about to happen. this is an ability that would benifit the human race greatly, and surely, if we did evolve we would still have those instincts. we don't.
That's just plain rubbish.
if evolution is a continious thing, then why havnt some of the human race evolved into super-humans?
Time. They still might.
and why has it only been humans that have evolved?
It hasn't.
if we trace evolution back, the most basic lifeform is an amiba.
Amoeba.
so if evolutin was and is a continious process, then we must have evolved from something before we were apes/ monkeys.
We were never apes or monkeys.
if you keep tracing back then you would find that all life came from amibas- so why are there millions of different species of animals?
Evolution has taken many pathways.
these are just a few reasons why evolution is the biggest hoax ever.
These are just a few examples of why you are an ignoramus.
Originally posted by scottishinnzEven if your dating methods are correct, that doesn't mean that
Claims? So radioactive dating means nothing to you. Never mind, I don;t fancy going round in circles again with that one.
what you claim is true about evolution. It is a matter of how far
those changes in DNA can go, was the starting block with just one
life form at the beginning and then the vast array we see today,
or did the start of life begin with several fully developed and then
the vast array we see today? You cannot know that by looking at
a fully developed life form, you can only take on faith what you
believe to be true with the limited knowledge we have on the
subject, because we only know in part, we fill in the blind spots
on faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by skinbinIdiot.
evolution, in my opinion, is a load of rubbish.
if evolution is true, then how come there are still monkes and apes around today? surely if evolution was in existance and still is, then the creatures that we supposedly evolved from would have evolved themselves into extinction.
the theory is that evolution takes place over millions of years, and so if ...[text shortened]... species of animals?
these are just a few reasons why evolution is the biggest hoax ever.
Originally posted by skinbinLook look everyone, we found the missing link!
evolution, in my opinion, is a load of rubbish.
if evolution is true, then how come there are still monkes and apes around today? surely if evolution was in existance and still is, then the creatures that we supposedly evolved from would have evolved themselves into extinction.
the theory is that evolution takes place over millions of years, and so if ...[text shortened]... species of animals?
these are just a few reasons why evolution is the biggest hoax ever.
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, do you have nothing better to do with your time? I mean you come here, in full knowledge that your own beliefs are not substantial enough to withstand scientific rigour and then try to blame scientists for drawing the only sensible conclusion from all available data! I mean, 150 years of trying by your type still hasn't even dented the theory of evolution. Give it up man! I could demolish any attempt at a scientific explanation for your beliefs in about 30 seconds. You cannot explain why chloroplasts have two membranes (except using the old "goddunnit" explanation), but I can, using evolutionary theory (and in particular endosymbiotic theory), you cannot explain genetic, physiological or biochemical similarities between different species, and phyla except with "goddunnit", but I can. You cannot explain why people aren't able to fly, or why parents take care of their young, or the reasons most cultures (except those with severely protein deficient diets) and species don't embrace cannabalism, or why monsters don't really live under your bed, or why leaves are green, or why there are very few big ferocious animals, except with "goddunit". But I can!
Even if your dating methods are correct, that doesn't mean that
what you claim is true about evolution. It is a matter of how far
those changes in DNA can go, was the starting block with just one
life form at the beginning and then the vast array we see today,
or did the start of life begin with several fully developed and then
the vast array we see t ...[text shortened]... ave on the
subject, because we only know in part, we fill in the blind spots
on faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzHell I've yet to hear a sane explanation for the fact that many of our major food crops have come from wild plants that breed in completely different ways. Or how teosinte became modern day corn.
Kelly, do you have nothing better to do with your time? I mean you come here, in full knowledge that your own beliefs are not substantial enough to withstand scientific rigour and then try to blame scientists for drawing the only sensible conclusion from all available data! I mean, 150 years of trying by your type still hasn't even dented the theory o ...[text shortened]... , or why there are very few big ferocious animals, except with "goddunit". But I can!
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhere do you want to begin?. Rice and barley are relatively straightforward in their history, Breadwheat doesn't exist in the while but is, in effect a three way hybrid. Don't know much about corm apart from the fact it has an immense genome and domestication selected for reduction of the seed coats (glumes) (http://www.maizegenetics.net/index.php?page=domestication/domesticationgenetics.html)
Hell I've yet to hear a sane explanation for the fact that many of our major food crops have come from wild plants that breed in completely different ways. Or how teosinte became modern day corn.
All of these are domesticated grasses. All of them reproduce sexually but modern varieties are highly inbred.
Potatoes are another hybrid (which I vaguely remember does not exist in the wild) and is generally wierd due to its assexual reproduction (If you want to see a clone look into a bag of potatoes)
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI meant other than evolution.
Where do you want to begin?. Rice and barley are relatively straightforward in their history, Breadwheat doesn't exist in the while but is, in effect a three way hybrid. Don't know much about corm apart from the fact it has an immense genome and domestication selected for reduction of the seed coats (glumes) (http://www.maizegenetics.net/index.php?page= ...[text shortened]... ierd due to its assexual reproduction (If you want to see a clone look into a bag of potatoes)
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou're just being silly now.
I meant other than evolution.
The bible does have quite alot to say about early farming and is worth a read if you're into crop genetics. Barley was probaly domesticated in or near modern Israel. Tetrapoid wheats (emmer & durum) probably start a little further north and hexaploid (bread) wheat originates (probably) in Iraq
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm not blaming anyone for drawing conclusions, it is a human trait
Kelly, do you have nothing better to do with your time? I mean you come here, in full knowledge that your own beliefs are not substantial enough to withstand scientific rigour and then try to blame scientists for drawing the only sensible conclusion from all available data! I mean, 150 years of trying by your type still hasn't even dented the theory o , or why there are very few big ferocious animals, except with "goddunit". But I can!
when looking at only scattered pieces of information, it isn't a trait
that is only given to a select few. As far as something better to do
with my time, this board is one given to “Spirituality” is it not?
I mean if you think these are not matters of faith, why are you
bothering to discuss them here? Go to the debate board and rely on
science to carry the day without someone pointing out that you
are acting on faith when you accept that which cannot be proven
wrong.
I do believe this is a matter of faith, because people do not have all
knowledge, we only know in part, and we fill in the blanks with
what we believe to be true, which explains why you rely upon
various and sundry dating methods as the one of the main
foundational truths of your world view on how to figure out how old
the universe is, and then trying to piece together how it came about.
Your foundational truth of dating the universe cannot be proven
wrong, it simply is either accepted or rejected as my belief about God
is. When presented with a difficult point in evolution you simply
claim a long time ex: "cambrian explosion" and move on as if that
ends all discussion for you, much like when people get upset with
someone saying God did it supernaturally it is basically the same
thing fall back upon that which cannot be proven wrong and rest
there. You can explain anything you want, your explanations are
simply that, explanations, which does not mean they are right or
wrong. Taking pride is such an ability to come up with a story on
why, is a little mystifying, but if it makes you happy.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe central tennent of this post is that "evolution cannot be proven wrong". This is utter rot. I've pointed out numerous times how evolution could be proven wrong, and none of your lot have ever managed to find that proof.
I'm not blaming anyone for drawing conclusions, it is a human trait
when looking at only scattered pieces of information, it isn't a trait
that is only given to a select few. As far as something better to do
with my time, this board is one given to “Spirituality” is it not?
I mean if you think these are not matters of faith, why are you
bothering to di ...[text shortened]... y to come up with a story on
why, is a little mystifying, but if it makes you happy.
Kelly
Evolution makes my world view complete. I can explain any biological phenomenon using evolution, in terms of differential survival and reproduction (i.e. mathematically). Your sole explanation is "goddunnit". I cannot see how you possibly believe that your explanation is more complete than mine.
Why do we discuss this here? Well, mainly because it's Christians who are trying to get laws changed to enforce their docotrine and repress the truth (i.e. evolution). My goal is simply to try and make a few of you guys see that evolution is truely the explanation for the diversity of life on earth/
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe central tenet of that post is that you have to claim millions or
The central tennent of this post is that "evolution cannot be proven wrong". This is utter rot. I've pointed out numerous times how evolution could be proven wrong, and none of your lot have ever managed to find that proof.
Evolution makes my world view complete. I can explain any biological phenomenon using evolution, in terms of differential s ...[text shortened]... you guys see that evolution is truely the explanation for the diversity of life on earth/
billions of years to take the belief that these small changes add up
to something else. When you complain about people who say God
did it, you do the same thing with the use of long periods of time.
I acknowledge small changes, I acknowledge small variations in
species or kinds, but I don't acknowledge that those small changes
will build a nervous system or something along those lines over
time within life forms descendants that never had one before.
The only proof you have for those types of changes so far is nothing,
but yours or others interpretation of the fossil record, which could
just as easily be simply other like creatures something along the
line of distant cousins instead of ancient grandparents. We have
like creatures today.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe problem I keep coming back to is, if you can acknowledge one, why can't you acknowledge the other?
I acknowledge small changes, I acknowledge small variations in
species or kinds, but I don't acknowledge that those small changes
will build a nervous system or something along those lines over
time within life forms descendants that never had one before.
Kelly
-JC
Originally posted by ChurlantBecause one does not mean it automatically translates to the other!
The problem I keep coming back to is, if you can acknowledge [b]one, why can't you acknowledge the other?
-JC[/b]
That is the full point, I can walk across my yard, that does not mean
I can walk around the planet, because of oceans, mountains and
other odds and ends that could stop me.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you want to go that route, I could say that while you can't literally walk over a mountain, you can climb it or even go around. While you can't walk the ocean, you can build a boat.
Because one does not mean it automatically translates to the other!
That is the full point, I can walk across my yard, that does not mean
I can walk around the planet, because of oceans, mountains and
other odds and ends that could stop me.
Kelly
However this process doesn't follow beause it isn't that easy to analogize. Even if it were, I still want to know why you believe in one, but refuse to even entertain the other.
Since you like the invalid comparisons, why not offer one of my own. It's like me saying I refuse to believe we can fly because while I may be able to jump a foot or two into the air, there are way too many obstacles to get any higher than that.
-JC