Just how old is humanity

[Beatnik Bob]

You suggested earlier that given enough time, and the right monkeys, we could breed humans. Right?

BUT, would these monkeys, back when there was no one to select the monkeys and breed them into humans, still become humans eventually on their OWN ACCORD?
I doubt it, because it would require the superior breeding of good genes with good genes to create an out come. Requiring more intelligence than i think a monkey in its state possesses.


We are assuming that your idea that, domestication as an evolutionary tool, is correct, and it still proves that a monkey is not going to form a human ALL by itself. A human would have to go back in time a breed the good monkeys with the good monkeys.

Domestication does not exist in nature. Humans are its only natural creators and executioners.

Irrelevant, we didn't create those animals for fighting.

So apparently it is also irrelevant that evolution is designed to better something by the guidelines of "survival of the fitest", and if a cow is destroyed in a battle with a wildebeast, it means that cow is a weak link and evolutionarily, worthy of utter extinction.
But you seem to believe domestication is an evolutionary tool, even though we can both see the nonsense of that...

They aren't devolving. Devolving is the merging of species into one.

The way I use the word, I mean they are becoming something worse, not better. and evolution is based on betterment.

Evolution has no goal it works to. So your idea of devolving doesn't exist.

Yeah, it would not conciously be working towards something, but it still strives toward betterment. Of course it never would have known (and for the sake of this argument we are going to have to give it life like characteristics) humans would become what they are today...but it never the less worked on improving the human brain. This equals betterment. Progression. Improvement. Mejora. Verbesserung. Teesbechah....

Incorrect. The human evolved to their environment like any other animal.
That it suddenly found itself able to produce technology is purely coincidental.

Then explain what's different in say, a lions will to evolve, and a humans...the lion did not choose to get a larger brain, it chose a swift speed and a an array of killing abilities...and it seems the monkey did not, and still you seem to say technology is trivial, though for what other reason would the monkey have evolved a larger brain for? Especially as it requires a massive amount of resources and blood.

Humans didn't rely on their intellect in the beginning. But more on other skills.
Creating spears and arrows were interesting inventions. But the human was still able to properly feed itself without them.

I would call those brain skills...as only a creature with a certain sized brain seems capable of producing them...

Auto pregnancy. The egg contained a full set of DNA and the animal cloned itself in the womb.

CLONED?
Doesnt evolution suggest that some kind of change emerge...not the same old thing again and agian?

And furethermore, this assumption is false, not just because I believe it lacks scientific evidence, but because the female vagina is created for reproducing with a penis...and the penis likewise.
For there to be a creature equipped with what early females had, and be lacking in a male, is absurd simply based on the fact that they would have to have both come into existence simultaneously. Due to their...equipment.

The reason why males have nipples is because its not hindering us in our survival.
And thus isn't deleted.

Would it hinder me to have a useless vagina as well? no. And would I be hindered if I was an exact replication of a woman, but with a penis? Not really.

You are either suggesting that evolution thinks things through, and got rid of some things because it wanted to see some kind of autonomy for some puzzling reason. (which you and I know evolution doesnt think things through), or you are beaing naive....which I dont blame you for (no one has all the answeres).

Again, before the male evolved. The organism cloned herself.

Link me?

Also I would ask why a male would bother evolving at all, since the female would seem to have a good thing going. And with a male, it would only make a species weaker, because wherease before it had been self dependent, it now relies on an entity, that without whish, extinction is inevitable.
That doesnt sound very efficient for survival.

That doesn't stop nature from trying it.
And given several millions of years time, it could easily accomplished that.

You admit then that the sexes alone would have taken uncounted years to come into being?

The more complex an animal becomes, the harder it becomes to adapt.

But this bacteria idea also brings along an idea of PUREPOSE.
The bacteria seem to be there for a reason, and instead of becomeing something else, they split where one celled organisms stayed behind and we went forward.
Why did they stay behind? Because they were so successful? Were neanderthals not successful enough that they could not exist with us too, like monkeys do?

and how come the current ecological system fits so perfectly and without errors, even though evolution does not rationalise.

The real elephant man.

Yes. when he was much older and had already had surgery that removed much of the odd deformities he had once had.

The elephant man I reffered to was the elephant man at birth...as he was. Obviously the surgery (if you want to call their crude practices that and not just amputation) existed back then, and it cost him a bit of money.

And I do believe there is no picture of him prior to surgery, though I believe there are accounts.

He looked much like an elephant before though from representational drawings i've seen.

Those weird mutations are just nature trying to do new things.
The code to grow a tail still lies dormant in every human. And sometimes a mutation activates it again.

Are you suggesting that the code to become an elephant still lies dormant? BAHAHA...

Monkeys existed. Shiva didn't.

Yeah, I know that...
But then explain that girl's many limbs even though no such organism with 8 limbs lie in the human past.

[lycanox]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

You suggested earlier that given enough time, and the right monkeys, we could breed humans. Right?

Yes.

BUT, would these monkeys, back when there was no one to select the monkeys and breed them into humans, still become humans eventually on their OWN ACCORD?

I doubt it, because it would require the superior breeding of good genes with good genes to create an out come. Requiring more intelligence than i think a monkey in its state possesses.

It had nature there to select them.

We are assuming that your idea that, domestication as an evolutionary tool, is correct, and it still proves that a monkey is not going to form a human ALL by itself. A human would have to go back in time a breed the good monkeys with the good monkeys.

Its the other way around. Evolution is a tool used for domestication.

Domestication does not exist in nature. Humans are its only natural creators and executioners.

Aside nature itself.

So apparently it is also irrelevant that evolution is designed to better something by the guidelines of "survival of the fitest", and if a cow is destroyed in a battle with a wildebeast, it means that cow is a weak link and evolutionarily, worthy of utter extinction.
But you seem to believe domestication is an evolutionary tool, even though we can both see the nonsense of that...

Evolution is a tool for domestication. We didn't force cows to evolve into something battle worthy. We forced them to evolve into something that gave better milk and meat.

The way I use the word, I mean they are becoming something worse, not better. and evolution is based on betterment.


Yeah, it would not conciously be working towards something, but it still strives toward betterment. Of course it never would have known (and for the sake of this argument we are going to have to give it life like characteristics) humans would become what they are today...but it never the less worked on improving the human brain. This equals betterment. Progression. Improvement. Mejora. Verbesserung. Teesbechah....

Not betterment. But survivability and diversity. If this forced an animal to evolve into a lesser state. It would still be evolution.

Then explain what's different in say, a lions will to evolve, and a humans...the lion did not choose to get a larger brain, it chose a swift speed and a an array of killing abilities...and it seems the monkey did not, and still you seem to say technology is trivial, though for what other reason would the monkey have evolved a larger brain for? Especially as it requires a massive amount of resources and blood.

Lions didn't choose for speed and humans didn't choose for their ability to develop technology. It just happened. Humans could just as easily evolved into something faster like lions. And lions could just as easily evolved to be able to produce technology.
So it could just as easily be the other way around.

I would call those brain skills...as only a creature with a certain sized brain seems capable of producing them...

Its not that we were completely stupid before we started producing technology.

CLONED?
Doesnt evolution suggest that some kind of change emerge...not the same old thing again and agian?

No natural clone is 100% the same.

And furethermore, this assumption is false, not just because I believe it lacks scientific evidence, but because the female vagina is created for reproducing with a penis...and the penis likewise.
For there to be a creature equipped with what early females had, and be lacking in a male, is absurd simply based on the fact that they would have to have both come into existence simultaneously. Due to their...equipment.

This was way before those organs evolved.
We first had females, then we got a form between that was both female and male.
And that split up in males and females.

Would it hinder me to have a useless vagina as well? no. And would I be hindered if I was an exact replication of a woman, but with a penis? Not really.

Back then it was more like a little hole in the cell membrame that released DNA from time to time. And a little hole that allowed genetic material to enter.

You are either suggesting that evolution thinks things through, and got rid of some things because it wanted to see some kind of autonomy for some puzzling reason. (which you and I know evolution doesnt think things through), or you are beaing naive....which I dont blame you for (no one has all the answeres).

It doesn't. Its just a complex system.

Link me?

Just look in the mirror. The fact that we have males proves me right. Besides, if it worked an other way. We would need to insert more than an Y chromosome too create a male. And that is not how it works today.

Also I would ask why a male would bother evolving at all, since the female would seem to have a good thing going. And with a male, it would only make a species weaker, because wherease before it had been self dependent, it now relies on an entity, that without whish, extinction is inevitable.
That doesnt sound very efficient for survival.

Nature just flipped a coin. Head, it evolved man. Coin, it didn't.
Apparently the fact that it now had to seek for a mate wasn't such bad disadvantage. And nature adapted to the new situation with the sex organs it has today.

You admit then that the sexes alone would have taken uncounted years to come into being?

Only a small time compared with the millions of years it had.

But this bacteria idea also brings along an idea of PUREPOSE.

How so?

The bacteria seem to be there for a reason, and instead of becomeing something else, they split where one celled organisms stayed behind and we went forward.
Why did they stay behind? Because they were so successful? Were neanderthals not successful enough that they could not exist with us too, like monkeys do?

Yep, bacterial were successful enough to stay. Neanthertals weren't.
Its that easy.

and how come the current ecological system fits so perfectly and without errors, even though evolution does not rationalise.

The ones that didn't fit in died out in a process known as natural selection.

Yes. when he was much older and had already had surgery that removed much of the odd deformities he had once had.

No he didn't. His deformity was the only source of money he had.

The elephant man I reffered to was the elephant man at birth...as he was. Obviously the surgery (if you want to call their crude practices that and not just amputation) existed back then, and it cost him a bit of money.

And I do believe there is no picture of him prior to surgery, though I believe there are accounts.

He looked much like an elephant before though from representational drawings i've seen.


Are you suggesting that the code to become an elephant still lies dormant? BAHAHA...

In short, you are relying your entire point on a mere rumor that has absolutely no grounds.

Yeah, I know that...
But then explain that girl's many limbs even though no such organism with 8 limbs lie in the human past.

[/QUOTE]A small mutation in the gene that controls the amount of legs someone gets.

[Beatnik Bob]

Sorry for the belated post. Im busy these days, and it probably wont be the last time i dont respond quickly.

It had nature there to select them.

Nature ISNT a taskmaster that is going to bend the monkeys to its will

Its the other way around. Evolution is a tool used for domestication.

No. Evolution is based on principles of betterment. Domestication is not betterment, because the terms of survival state that the domesticated creature would be DEPENDENT, and EXTREMELY UNselfsefficiant.
Humans are self sufficient.
Wolves are self sufficient.
Dogs are not. They would not survive in what I refer to as "the wild".
Cows are even WEAKER and require always human maintenance and depend on us for survival.
The following comes from the online Merriam webster dictionary:

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing

The evolution we are using implies positive development. Not negative. The deffinitions imply growth, on a positive scale. Not just ANY kind of growth.

Evolution is a tool for domestication. We didn't force cows to evolve into something battle worthy. We forced them to evolve into something that gave better milk and meat.

And that tool is just that: a tool.
It isnt self-sufficient and isnt even good at survival. ALL it is good for is milk and meat.
That's not evolution.

This proves the autonomy of evolution and domestication.

Lions didn't choose for speed and humans didn't choose for their ability to develop technology. It just happened. Humans could just as easily evolved into something faster like lions. And lions could just as easily evolved to be able to produce technology.

But they didnt.

And due to what they became a choice can be assumed. Because if it were otherwise, it is possible that both the lion and the monkey would have evolved a bigger brain. (. Since humans seem to be the most highly evolved mammal--due to our technology providing brain . . . .)

Its not that we were completely stupid before we started producing technology.

due to our technology providing brain. Not our claws or jaws, because a human in itself is no doubt one of the weakest mammals. but out brains are synonymous with technology, as you can see, proving the evolutionary[though unconciously] development of brains as a usable tool. Just as claws are a usable tool designed for doing something. To deny technology as an evolutionary development is to deny any other creature's usefull adaptations. The adaptations arent chance

No natural clone is 100% the same.

Though clearly similar enough that a drastic evolution could not take place.

This was way before those organs evolved.
We first had females, then we got a form between that was both female and male.
And that split up in males and females.

Back then it was more like a little hole in the cell membrame that released DNA from time to time. And a little hole that allowed genetic material to enter.

From where? the nonexistant impregnator? Or the ancient, reproducing, lesbian race?
You and your fantastical theories...

Also, if the reproductive organs were so drastically different back then. Why then do the teats seem to remain unchanged, and I have them? I note also that humans, monkeys and other of the such seem to be the only creatures who's males have useless boobs. And by evolutionary theory even monkeys didnt exist before the dinosaurs, or even from near the beginning.

Nature just flipped a coin. Head, it evolved man. Coin, it didn't.
Apparently the fact that it now had to seek for a mate wasn't such bad disadvantage. And nature adapted to the new situation with the sex organs it has today.

When nature has a good thing going, it isnt going to flip a coin. Especially when the possibilities are actually ENDLESS and not a 50/50 scenerio. So your analogy is really flawed, and I find it doubtful that out of all the possibilities in the universe for the spreading of genes in an evolutionary way, two sexes were found to be the most efficient. Theyre actually the LEAST efficient.

Just to name a couple examples, an orgy like system could have come into place allowing many genes to interact, and make the evolutionary process happen much quicker. And also with a cloning system (that I dont believe...), the woman would be self sufficient in reproducing and not prone to any handicaps that would come from an added sex.
You're ideas are flawed, and for this reason I doubt they are accepted by the scientific community. And if you are making this up to explain things away, then it is clearly not part of the accepted theory. And thus false, as I can see from looking in the "mirror".
So again. if it's true. LINK me.

How so?

The fact that everything seems to work in a kind of harmony together. Even insects we think useless, stinging bugs, provide immune system boosts to the animals they sting.
They all reflect on purpose. A purpose that nature isnt supposed to have because it cant rationalise and knowingly work toward a goal.

Yep, bacterial were successful enough to stay. Neanthertals weren't.
Its that easy.

So I suppose monkeys were more successful and evolved than neanderthals then huh?

No he didn't. *His deformity was the only source of money he had.

In short, you are relying your entire point on a mere rumor that has absolutely no grounds.

the elephant man is not a rumor. He actually existed, even if that sounds strange.

Though I take it you doubt the fact of his surgery? Why? You think even up until his old, strangely well-off, age he was performing in side-shows for his deformities?
Thats mainly ignorance rather than mockery. Stop using Wikipedia as your main source of facts.

*WRONG. You forget human compassion. He was also a English celebrity of sorts, loved by Queen Victoria. Also he had a wealthy doctor that took a liking to him (though perhaps because of his use for study[though it also provided him with care and money]).

From the book 'The True History of the Elephant Man' By Michael Howard and Peter Ford:

Mid 1882: Joseph Merrick undergoes surgery at Leicester Hospital to remove fleshy (trunk-like) protuberance from upper lip. Dr. Charles Marriott and Dr. Thomas Warburton Benfield are presumed to have attended.

[/QUOTE]A small mutation in the gene that controls the amount of legs someone gets.[/QUOTE]

Then the tail is clearly a small mutation in the gene that abnormally leangthened the spinal cord.



On a whole different note, I note that evolution does not exist anymore according to current evolutionary theory.

You can refute this, but your betters and evolution as a theory does not hold mutations to be happening ANY LONGER.
The fantastical explanations you come up with dont matter, because the scientific community in its great thought and wisdom and knowledge, has spoken.

And this now-accepted idea is what I believe has killed evolutions validity. Because evolution in ideal, is not supposed to simply stop mutating. Evolution isnt supposed to end utterly, like it has. It is supposed to go on and natural selection continue. But it is indeed dead, which has created huge oxymoron out of the whole theory making it even more unbelievable.

Also, in addition to evolution being now dead, I might add that evolution is extremely unlike all other theories in its validity. For example:

The theory of gravity. While it is a theory, you can actually test it and conduct controlled experiments, which you cannot do in evolution. Evolution requires an experiment which has yet to be done, and would take so long that it would remain impossible. It is merely a psuedo theory more akin to archaeology and other imaginary based concludings, than the science it is claimed to be.

Theory of reletivity. This is another theory, but it can actually be tested. Like when it was tested that light from on the other side of the planet was seen, due to the warp in space time. Evolution is incapable of having any such test and remains a false theory lacking much validity.

[lycanox]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Sorry for the belated post. Im busy these days, and it probably wont be the last time i dont respond quickly.

Nature ISNT a taskmaster that is going to bend the monkeys to its will

Indeed, that is why we were extremely luckily to evolve the way we did.

No. Evolution is based on principles of betterment. Domestication is not betterment, because the terms of survival state that the domesticated creature would be DEPENDENT, and EXTREMELY UNselfsefficiant.
Humans are self sufficient.
Wolves are self sufficient.
Dogs are not. They would not survive in what I refer to as "the wild".
Cows are even WEAKER and require always human maintenance and depend on us for survival.

Nope, evolution isn’t out to make animals stronger, faster or smarter. Its out to make animals better suited to live in their environment.

Domestication is just making animals adapt to the human environment. And we used the same mechanisms as evolution does to steer their adaptation. Only instead of survival of the fittest. We used survival of the best of the nest.

The following comes from the online Merriam webster dictionary:

Main Entry: evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing

And how does that rule out cows and dogs?

The evolution we are using implies positive development. Not negative. The deffinitions imply growth, on a positive scale. Not just ANY kind of growth.

The negative growth gets removed by either natural death. Or humans by selective breeding.
As a result, only the positive development is left to evolve further.

And that tool is just that: a tool.
It isnt self-sufficient and isnt even good at survival. ALL it is good for is milk and meat.
That's not evolution.

It adapted itself to better suit the human needs so that we feeded them. Its called a symbioses. There are lot of animals in nature that aren’t self sustaining. And the force that created them is still evolution.

This proves the autonomy of evolution and domestication.

What you are suggesting is that if a rock falls from a mountain it is gravity. And if a
Man throws it from the mountain it is not.

But they didnt.

Whish has more to do with dumb luck.

And due to what they became a choice can be assumed.

Nope, lion’s didn’t want to be faster and humans never asked to be smarter.
It’s just how things happen. Or do you make the choice to suddenly evolve wings?

Because if it were otherwise, it is possible that both the lion and the monkey would have evolved a bigger brain.

And that is indeed possible.

(. Since humans seem to be the most highly evolved mammal--due to our technology providing brain . . . .)

Nope, evolution doesn’t have an end goal. On it endpoint lays only animals that don’t change at all.

due to our technology providing brain. Not our claws or jaws, because a human in itself is no doubt one of the weakest mammals. but out brains are synonymous with technology, as you can see, proving the evolutionary[though unconciously] development of brains as a usable tool. Just as claws are a usable tool designed for doing something. To deny technology as an evolutionary development is to deny any other creature's usefull adaptations. The adaptations arent chance

It was. If we by dumb luck evolved other means to survive in the local conditions than our brain. We would never have evolved to use technology.

Though clearly similar enough that a drastic evolution could not take place.

Any little difference is enough to allow evolution to happen.

This was way before those organs evolved.
We first had females, then we got a form between that was both female and male.
And that split up in males and females.

The first female replicated itself without any outside help.

From where? the nonexistant impregnator? Or the ancient, reproducing, lesbian race?

From a similar bacteria.

You and your fantastical theories..

.
At least I know what i am talking about. I haven’t heard your explanations.

Also, if the reproductive organs were so drastically different back then. Why then do the teats seem to remain unchanged, and I have them?

They have changed.

I note also that humans, monkeys and other of the such seem to be the only creatures who's males have useless boobs. And by evolutionary theory even monkeys didnt exist before the dinosaurs, or even from near the beginning.

That’s because we evolved differently from other animals. All animals share the female base form do.

When nature has a good thing going, it isnt going to flip a coin.

Nature also had a good thing going when we evolved out of the water. However Dolphins and whales went back in the water again.

Especially when the possibilities are actually ENDLESS and not a 50/50 scenerio. So your analogy is really flawed,

The analogy was that it was all just chance. Not a 50/50 chance.

and I find it doubtful that out of all the possibilities in the universe for the spreading of genes in an evolutionary way, two sexes were found to be the most efficient.

Theyre actually the LEAST efficient.

How so?

Just to name a couple examples, an orgy like system could have come into place allowing many genes to interact, and make the evolutionary process happen much quicker.

And who will take care of the children? Or select the best triads for the children? And there are organisms that use such system to reproduce.

And also with a cloning system (that I dont believe...), the woman would be self sufficient in reproducing and not prone to any handicaps that would come from an added sex.

We evolved genders way before we became anything more complex than fungus. All that happened was that each time a female cell bumped into a male cell, it got some new DNA to work with.

You're ideas are flawed, and for this reason I doubt they are accepted by the scientific community. And if you are making this up to explain things away, then it is clearly not part of the accepted theory. And thus false, as I can see from looking in the "mirror".
So again. if it's true. LINK me.

And that coming from the person that said that genetics has nothing to do with evolution?
Perhaps you should go to the library and rent a book. It’s all in there.

The fact that everything seems to work in a kind of harmony together. Even insects we think useless, stinging bugs, provide immune system boosts to the animals they sting.
They all reflect on purpose. A purpose that nature isnt supposed to have because it cant rationalise and knowingly work toward a goal.

Nope, it’s all the result of change. Anything that didn’t fit in the system removes itself eventually.

So I suppose monkeys were more successful and evolved than neanderthals then huh?

Neanderthals evolved out of an early version of humans. And the monkey we are talking about is already extinct and evolved into something else.

the elephant man is not a rumor. He actually existed, even if that sounds strange.

I know.

Though I take it you doubt the fact of his surgery? Why? You think even up until his old, strangely well-off, age he was performing in side-shows for his deformities?

That’s a fact. And even if he did had surgery. He still didn’t look like an elephant before. Such decease doesn’t exist.

*WRONG. You forget human compassion. He was also a English celebrity of sorts, loved by Queen Victoria. Also he had a wealthy doctor that took a liking to him (though perhaps because of his use for study[though it also provided him with care and money]).

From the book 'The True History of the Elephant Man' By Michael Howard and Peter Ford:

Mid 1882: Joseph Merrick undergoes surgery at Leicester Hospital to remove fleshy (trunk-like) protuberance from upper lip. Dr. Charles Marriott and Dr. Thomas Warburton Benfield are presumed to have attended.

Trunk like growth has nothing to do with elephants. But is a mutation within the genetic structure that regulates the face formation. Such a similar mutation could have started the evolution of the trunks seen by elephants.

[/QUOTE]A small mutation in the gene that controls the amount of legs someone gets.

Then the tail is clearly a small mutation in the gene that abnormally leangthened the spinal cord.[/QUOTE] Yes. A left over gene from the time we still had tails.

On a whole different note, I note that evolution does not exist anymore according to current evolutionary theory.

You can refute this, but your betters and evolution as a theory does not hold mutations to be happening ANY LONGER.

Mutations still happens. The fact that cancer hasn’t declined over the years proves that.

The fantastical explanations you come up with dont matter, because the scientific community in its great thought and wisdom and knowledge, has spoken.

Prove it. That sounds too much like the typical creationist excuse.

And this now-accepted idea is what I believe has killed evolutions validity. Because evolution in ideal, is not supposed to simply stop mutating. Evolution isnt supposed to end utterly, like it has. It is supposed to go on and natural selection continue. But it is indeed dead, which has created huge oxymoron out of the whole theory making it even more unbelievable.

There is no indication that evolution has suddenly stopped all together. So again. Prove it.

Also, in addition to evolution being now dead, I might add that evolution is extremely unlike all other theories in its validity. For example:

The theory of gravity. While it is a theory, you can actually test it and conduct controlled experiments, which you cannot do in evolution. Evolution requires an experiment which has yet to be done, and would take so long that it would remain impossible. It is merely a psuedo theory more akin to archaeology and other imaginary based concludings, than the science it is claimed to be.
Theory of reletivity. This is another theory, but it can actually be tested. Like when it was tested that light from on the other side of the planet was seen, due to the warp in space time. Evolution is incapable of having any such test and remains a false theory lacking much validity.

Nonsense. The proof for evolution is overwhelming.
And at the moment there is no other theory present to explain things. And we know from our experience with animals that it works.

So unless you have a better theory whish does not evolve gods and imaginary beings like creationism does. I doubt we are just going to shelve evolution.

[DontBeAfraid]

Originally Posted by beatnik bob

The evolution we are using implies positive development. Not negative. The deffinitions imply growth, on a positive scale. Not just ANY kind of growth.

No, evolution is just change, be it positive or negative.

And that tool is just that: a tool.
It isnt self-sufficient and isnt even good at survival. ALL it is good for is milk and meat.
That's not evolution.

No, it is exactly evolution. In the case of cows its symbiotic evolution. They grow dependant on us for survival and we, in a limited fashion, on them. Evolution does not imply that anything gets "better" at surviving "in the wild". It is only a shift in the gene pool of a population over a period of time.

[Cornish Maid]

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

No, evolution is just change, be it positive or negative.

I can see that evolution is change, like we were all the same colour when we came out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, and now we are the skin colour appropriate to are ancestrial homeland. I suppose that is positive. Can you give an example of negative evolution.

[DontBeAfraid]

Can you give an example of negative evolution.

Over specialization that results in an inability to adapt quickly enough to a changing environment and ultimately extinction. Of course, that specialization, be what it may, could also be viewed as positive for a good bit as well.

[Beatnik Bob]

Meh. Maybe I will mess with this seemingly endless argument...

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Over specialization that results in an inability to adapt quickly enough to a changing environment and ultimately extinction. Of course, that specialization, be what it may, could also be viewed as positive for a good bit as well.

But doesnt that suggest that we actually evolve toward a lesser means. It means we simply stop evolving, or dont evolve fast enough. This doesnt mean we have ever devolved in the sense I refer to. Youre (fairly correct) deffenition of de-evolution only implies extinction. But my de-evolution doesnt exist: THUS MY POINT. Because technically, an animal shouldnt be evolving from a wolf (a creature adabted to survival) into an animal less adapt to the wild...It would be as if humans started to descend into a small insect over time...LOL.

So maybe I should change the phrase I used. Animals cannot DE-adapt.

Thus this draws the line between domestication and evolution. One word: autonomy.

Indeed, that is why we were extremely luckily to evolve the way we did.

It isnt luck, its fantastical nonsense.
Are you suggesting that BY LUCK the right monkeys trecked across africa to mate with other monkeys that were right for them all by luck? They just wandered correctly? And then they KEPT wandering correctly? Having countless and counltess lucky encounters? I thought the whole idea of evolution was that the species SPLIT. The monkeys evolved, but then they migrated away and adapted to whatever place THAT was, and the humans evolved from the "monkey tribes" did likewise. But you suggest that they would have had to reunite to create humans...thus calling into question why we have more than one species of monkeys.

At least I know what i am talking about. I haven’t heard your explanations.

Explanations for what? Im not deffending anything...

Originally Posted by Lynx

There is no indication that evolution has suddenly stopped all together. So again. Prove it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...etics.research

I thought evolution couldnt stop?


But I would ask you, if evolution wasnt trying to create a human capable of technology, or, "mental offspring" what was the purpose of evolving a bigger brain? Because clearly the purpose behind, for example, claws was so that a creature could grip better, or used in eating. And jaws evolved in the use of eating as well, or to look fearsom to other creatures, and to express emotions like "back off" or "ill fight you"

And if evolution is truelly random and with no goal whatsoever and it is ALL by chance, it seems unlikely that anything could have been created in its perfect symetricalness; its purposefullness. Even the man that supposedly created the amino acids that would create DNA in theory, failed because it could never happen anywhere other than a test tube.

I dont know if youve seen the documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" but the physicists make an accurate example that the chance required to create this DNA would be something like someone pulling a slot machine lever and constantly getting 3 in a row. Because it would require all the right things to line up..(what was it... I believe something like a billion times?) in a row to create the DNA strand.
That kind of luck is way more than luck. That kind of chance is way more than chance. Its impossible and completely absurd, and now that I think about it it kills all my respect for evolution even as a childrens story

[DontBeAfraid]

But doesnt that suggest that we actually evolve toward a lesser means.

No.

It means we simply stop evolving, or dont evolve fast enough.

No and sometimes. The specialized an evolved trait is the less it is able to be adapted to change in circumstances. These things do not invalidate the reality of evolution in any way.

This doesnt mean we have ever devolved in the sense I refer to. Youre (fairly correct) deffenition of de-evolution only implies extinction. But my de-evolution doesnt exist: THUS MY POINT. Because technically, an animal shouldnt be evolving from a wolf (a creature adabted to survival) into an animal less adapt to the wild...It would be as if humans started to descend into a small insect over time...LOL.

By the true definition of evolution there is not such a thing as "de-evolving" or "devolving". Evolution is simply change in frequency of a genetic population over a period of time. All measures of "good" and "bad" or "forward" and "backward" are imagined constructs. An animal that evolves from a wolf into one less adept at surviving in the "wild" would likely be better suited to survive among us humans than other wild animals. Look at the way cows have been evolving from their ancestors. Somewhere in the past is an ancestor of a cow that didnt rely upon domestication to survive and yet cows are what they are today.

So maybe I should change the phrase I used. Animals cannot DE-adapt.

Animals no, species yes.

Thus this draws the line between domestication and evolution. One word: autonomy.

Wrong. Sorry.

Are you suggesting that BY LUCK the right monkeys trecked across africa to mate with other monkeys that were right for them all by luck?

No, the populations multiplied and spread slowly. How old do you htink the earth is? I dont remember you answering this and it seems rather important all of the sudden.

I thought the whole idea of evolution was that the species SPLIT. The monkeys evolved, but then they migrated away and adapted to whatever place THAT was, and the humans evolved from the "monkey tribes" did likewise. But you suggest that they would have had to reunite to create humans...thus calling into question why we have more than one species of monkeys

You are deliberately misrepresenting evolution. Or you are extremely stupid. Which is it?

Evolution has no purpose, only results. Many results build upon previous results. If you really must give evolution a purpose then it is only to make a species fit to survive. If a genetic chift allows a species to better survive then that gene shift stays. Obviously, intelligence allows a species to better survive and so it evolves cumulatively.

[lycanox]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Meh. Maybe I will mess with this seemingly endless argument...


But doesnt that suggest that we actually evolve toward a lesser means. It means we simply stop evolving, or dont evolve fast enough. This doesnt mean we have ever devolved in the sense I refer to. Youre (fairly correct) deffenition of de-evolution only implies extinction. But my de-evolution doesnt exist: THUS MY POINT. Because technically, an animal shouldnt be evolving from a wolf (a creature adabted to survival) into an animal less adapt to the wild...It would be as if humans started to descend into a small insect over time...LOL.

So maybe I should change the phrase I used. Animals cannot DE-adapt.

Its adapting to the environment. Not adapting to the wild.
And human households are just as much an environment as deserts and jungles are.

Thus this draws the line between domestication and evolution. One word: autonomy.

Evolution isn't the same as domestication. It is a tool used to domesticate animals.

It isnt luck, its fantastical nonsense.
Are you suggesting that BY LUCK the right monkeys trecked across africa to mate with other monkeys that were right for them all by luck? They just wandered correctly? And then they KEPT wandering correctly? Having countless and counltess lucky encounters?

Yep. That is basically what happened.

I thought the whole idea of evolution was that the species SPLIT. The monkeys evolved, but then they migrated away and adapted to whatever place THAT was, and the humans evolved from the "monkey tribes" did likewise.

Yep. That is why we have different kind of monkeys on the world.

But you suggest that they would have had to reunite to create humans...thus calling into question why we have more than one species of monkeys.

When did i suggested that?

Explanations for what? Im not deffending anything...

You are talking like you know it better. If evolution isn't the reason for all those different types of animals. Than what do you think happened?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...etics.research

I thought evolution couldnt stop?

It didnt. The ideas of that group only count for people living in the developed west. And is very controversial.
It never implied that humanity as a whole stopped evolved. It just stated that we are working against evolution.

But I would ask you, if evolution wasnt trying to create a human capable of technology, or, "mental offspring" what was the purpose of evolving a bigger brain?

Better memory of food locations. Better planning for hunts and seasons. Energy economics. Group dynamics etc. Living in the wild is a very thought provoking life.

Because clearly the purpose behind, for example, claws was so that a creature could grip better, or used in eating. And jaws evolved in the use of eating as well, or to look fearsom to other creatures, and to express emotions like "back off" or "ill fight you"

And brains are needed to maximize the use.

And if evolution is truelly random and with no goal whatsoever and it is ALL by chance, it seems unlikely that anything could have been created in its perfect symetricalness; its purposefullness. Even the man that supposedly created the amino acids that would create DNA in theory, failed because it could never happen anywhere other than a test tube.

And how do you explain them? Obviously they have been created outside test tubes. Otherwise we would never exist.

Besides amino acids have also been formed during test in which the primordial soup was recreated.

I dont know if youve seen the documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" but the physicists make an accurate example that the chance required to create this DNA would be something like someone pulling a slot machine lever and constantly getting 3 in a row. Because it would require all the right things to line up..(what was it... I believe something like a billion times?) in a row to create the DNA strand.

We had billions of billions of billions of billions of slot machines working on earth from its formation to now. And it is possible that DNA forms in comets as well.

If you take that in account. The chance of it happening is pretty high.

That kind of luck is way more than luck. That kind of chance is way more than chance. Its impossible and completely absurd, and now that I think about it it kills all my respect for evolution even as a childrens story

Along the chance isn't zero. It will happen sometime in the universe.

Perhaps you should read up on the Drake equation.

[lazserus]

Are you fuckers serious? We're arguing over evolution in a history thread? That's plain pathetic. Allow me to make a coloring book for those of you who are plain dumb (you know who you are, because you'll respond attacking me). For those of you who aren't hopeless, forgive me for repeating the simplistic notion.

Humanity can only be based on humans. Otherwise it wouldn't be humanity, but ergastanity. Anyway, the oldest Homo sapien bones found go no further back than 199,000 years ago. There's still question whether those 199,000 year-old remains are actually ours. NO MATTER! 199 thousand years ago is the first blink of modern human. EXTENSIVE paleontological and archeological discoveries over the last 10 years give us a pretty good picture of what happened. Modern humans prolificated maybe 45-60 thousand years ago, leaving green Africa. Neanderthals and Humans met several times over thousands of years. Some were violent, some were not. Neanderthal disappears sometime between 30-35 thousand years ago, and Humans take over.

Is that when humanity began? The quest for "humanity" is loaded, just as is the quest for the Arc of the Covenant, or the Holy Grail. If you're speaking scientifically and focusing on intellegence related to art, writing, agriculture, etc., then you're shit out of luck preaching something from long past. Humanity in the form of creativity and artistic nature came about maybe 40,000 years ago, just before our cousins vanished. But it didn't come about in some brilliant way; it was in crude paintings and tool construction. If we measure humanity based on society, then we can only go back 10,000 years. Humanity is the pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow. In philosophical terms, it doesn't exist. Scientifically, we have but a speckle of time to explore with little evidence--60,000 years.

We're talking prehistory, right? Before recorded history? Keep that in mind.

[shortround]

Geology records all that has been laid down in its fossil form, and human kind has scant remains that even fall under the term "fossil" Every living thing that has existed since the primal swamp has left its record in rock strata and we date its age by this accepted concept, and if this wasn't an accepted form of research, then you could just as well throw out any and every form of geological dating we have.

The absolute earliest form of human art found in the South of France is between 30 and 40,000 years, prior to this you have the very little known migration that populated Europe and the middle East.

The simple fact of no known human stone fossil remains is a valid argument for placing any possibility beyond a 200,000 year period.

[lazserus]

[quote=shortround;234048The simple fact of no known human stone fossil remains is a valid argument for placing any possibility beyond a 200,000 year period.[/quote]
I appreciate your love and respect for the geologic record, but that isn't the problem. Sorry, slick, but you're ranting. The lack of human remains in any given locale gives no person validity in devising drivel. You seem strong in your knowledge of geology, my friend, but you haven't the foggiest idea of the history of primates. Geology makes a difference, but it is far from the area needed to understand our ancestors. No offense intended, but you also don't seem to comprehend the science of fossilization. Fossils, in any form, are very, very rare.

Anywhore, the reason human remains aren't prolific in the fossil record is directly related to the lack of time we've been around and population. There are nearly 6 billion people one the planet now, and a lot of that is guess work. There could actually be less and likely more, probably 7 billion. 10,000 years ago there were maybe 500,000 humans. Sometime in the Middle Ages a census was taken and estimated that there were no more than a few tens of millions of people on the earth. That seems short, but maybe not.

Forget population theories and Malthusian lore. The fact remains that hominid fossils are lacking because we're few and it's too soon to look. A few million years from now is ideal, joker.

[phedrereine]

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

Are you fuckers serious? We're arguing over evolution in a history thread? That's plain pathetic. Allow me to make a coloring book for those of you who are plain dumb (you know who you are, because you'll respond attacking me). For those of you who aren't hopeless, forgive me for repeating the simplistic notion.

Sigh. Here you are again.

Looks like we need to add another word to your vocabulary:

con·de·scend·ing Audio Help (kŏn'dĭ-sěn'dĭng) Pronunciation Key
adj.
To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

[shortround]

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

. Fossils, in any form, are very, very rare.

Anywhore, the reason human remains aren't prolific in the fossil record is directly related to the lack of time we've been around and population.

Thanks for making my point..LOL... the whole post was relative to the short time of human existence. And yes, fossils are rare, but no matter, it takes longer than a mere 200,000 years to to turn bone to stone.

[Beatnik Bob]

Am I to take it that you believe evolution is always within domestication?
Youre saying the following statement is your genuine belief?

Evolution isn't the same as domestication. It is a tool used to domesticate animals.

Alright. Awhile back you gave an example of domestication, using how a man would mate with a woman with larger boobs, thus making todays women larger breasted. right?
Well, I might point out, using this same example, that woman appear not to be hairy today as they were then. As in, women back then had chest hair, and hair like any other primal human. This hair could not have been breeded out, because all women had it.
Your explanation would be that men started desiring less hairy women, thus creating todays fairly hairless women. Thats absurd because there would be no reason to desire a hairless woman, because hair is nothing like boobs. I get boobs because they are a breeding object and have to do with sex and ability to reproduce. But hair just is, and I wouldnt get why early man wouldnt in his mind not desire it. But for some reason women lost hair, and men seemed to keep a large portion of it.
You are suggesting that all of a sudden a gene pops up in a body that doesnt want hair. And then, as is the case with other aspects of evolution, other genes would pop up as a kind of "organic program" specifying what should or should not be.

These genes just appeared here from what? You have to remember that energy can neither be created or destroyed, and all matter has energy. This means that this "energy" this gene, appeared as some kind of sentient program to dictate what should happen.
Evolutionary theory would say this gene came from one the creatures parents. This is also absurd because presumably both humans would have all eachothers genes. In fact, in the human DNA strand, all possibilities of human genes exist. You cant mate with another human to get anything actually new. All that happens if, say a black person marries a white person, is that the gene in both of them that allows that physical image of their offspring already existed. In other words. A white person already has the dormant genes of the physical differences of a black person. And nothing new can be gained through breeding, because all that happens is dormant genes are simply "unlocked" rather than added to or created to create a different creature.

Evolution is flawed at the quantum level. Nearly every smart physacist knows evolution is inherently flawed, but they arent sure what to replace it with. Creationism is clearly absurd, relying on ancient plagiarized scrolls from various different sources and meanings. So the scientific community has no idea what to turn to or replace evolution with. So they continue to keep evolution alive, even if only on paper, though the higher members of scientific community knows its blatant flaws. In fact, scientists that suggest evolution is wrong, and implausible (note:they are fervent anti-creationists) are hushed up.

Another such inherent flaw discovered by scientists is this:

We had billions of billions of billions of billions of slot machines working on earth from its formation to now. And it is possible that DNA forms in comets as well.

Yes. I do not denie the existence of vast "slot machines", but rather the chance of always getting "three in a row" billions of times in a row.

DNA requires not billions of amino acids (slot machines) but it requires those amino acids to ALWAYS match up perfectly and perfeclty construct the DNA strand. One wrong "match" would ruin the DNA into nonexistance.

In fact, the slot machine analogy isnt mine only, it was the analogy used by a high ranking man in the scientific community whos job it is to study DNA, which have no evolutionary explanation, due to the massive amount of "luck" required to create it.

Aka A scientist can make amino acids in a test tube with electricity and other variables to reenact the beginning of the world, but those amino acids are never, not without a huge intelect, going to make a DNA strand. Not in a trillion years.


Another interesting evolutionary flaw is the Big bang and the matter coming from nowhere. The big bang theory seems to be highly "mystical" in principal and fairly supernatural, implying a kind of universal ideology rather than science.


Actually. Its inarguable. The fact that evolution is so inherently flawed, that is. Too many scientists know it, and I trust these scientists ideas more than you based on their credentials.
(which by the way, I was told in school that evolution had utterly stopped. By a scientific PhD no less. This is another illustration in my mind that they have no idea what to think about evolution, because it is just as absurd as creationism).

It needs a replacement. Clearly.

Are you fuckers serious? We're arguing over evolution in a history thread?

Threads often lead to other debates. I would call the evolution debate a large splinter topic to the original, but still related.

[lycanox]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Am I to take it that you believe evolution is always within domestication?
Youre saying the following statement is your genuine belief?

In the long term any form of domestication has a an effect on an evolutionary level.
Even if we are not selective breeding them.

Alright. Awhile back you gave an example of domestication, using how a man would mate with a woman with larger boobs, thus making todays women larger breasted. right?

Nope, that's sexual selection. Not domestication.

Well, I might point out, using this same example, that woman appear not to be hairy today as they were then. As in, women back then had chest hair, and hair like any other primal human. This hair could not have been breeded out, because all women had it.

All woman had it in varying degree. If the ones with less hair constantly have more children. The ones with much hair water out.

Your explanation would be that men started desiring less hairy women, thus creating todays fairly hairless women. Thats absurd because there would be no reason to desire a hairless woman, because hair is nothing like boobs.

Sexual selection can be changed with trends. And doesn't really need to have a point.

I get boobs because they are a breeding object and have to do with sex and ability to reproduce. But hair just is, and I wouldnt get why early man wouldnt in his mind not desire it. But for some reason women lost hair, and men seemed to keep a large portion of it.

Females liked hair. Males didn't. Why they liked it that way is unknown.

You are suggesting that all of a sudden a gene pops up in a body that doesnt want hair. And then, as is the case with other aspects of evolution, other genes would pop up as a kind of "organic program" specifying what should or should not be.

Traids are a better term. But yes, traits pop up all the time.
And whether or not they survive depends on selective influences from the environment.

These genes just appeared here from what? You have to remember that energy can neither be created or destroyed, and all matter has energy. This means that this "energy" this gene, appeared as some kind of sentient program to dictate what should happen.

Genes are basically just building codes for a human body. Change the gene and the body changes aswell.

Evolutionary theory would say this gene came from one the creatures parents. This is also absurd because presumably both humans would have all eachothers genes.

Nope, this gene existed because another gene in a sperm or eggcell mutated. And was then passed on to the children.

In fact, in the human DNA strand, all possibilities of human genes exist. You cant mate with another human to get anything actually new. All that happens if, say a black person marries a white person, is that the gene in both of them that allows that physical image of their offspring already existed. In other words. A white person already has the dormant genes of the physical differences of a black person. And nothing new can be gained through breeding, because all that happens is dormant genes are simply "unlocked" rather than added to or created to create a different creature.

Nope, there are millions of different genes on this worlds. With each different codes and appearance. There is no code that every human has.

Evolution is flawed at the quantum level.

The quantum level has very little to do with evolution.

Nearly every smart physacist knows evolution is inherently flawed, but they arent sure what to replace it with. Creationism is clearly absurd, relying on ancient plagiarized scrolls from various different sources and meanings. So the scientific community has no idea what to turn to or replace evolution with. So they continue to keep evolution alive, even if only on paper, though the higher members of scientific community knows its blatant flaws. In fact, scientists that suggest evolution is wrong, and implausible (note:they are fervent anti-creationists) are hushed up.

Actually we haven't found any flaw in it yet.

Another such inherent flaw discovered by scientists is this:

Yes. I do not denie the existence of vast "slot machines", but rather the chance of always getting "three in a row" billions of times in a row.

DNA requires not billions of amino acids (slot machines) but it requires those amino acids to ALWAYS match up perfectly and perfeclty construct the DNA strand. One wrong "match" would ruin the DNA into nonexistance.

Which is why most of the DNA is currently stuck on a viral level. It only took one cell to seed the world.

In fact, the slot machine analogy isnt mine only, it was the analogy used by a high ranking man in the scientific community whos job it is to study DNA, which have no evolutionary explanation, due to the massive amount of "luck" required to create it.

Not true. It only needed a couple of series of a couple of thousand genes in the correct order to function. Whish merged later.

Not one series of millions.

Aka A scientist can make amino acids in a test tube with electricity and other variables to reenact the beginning of the world, but those amino acids are never, not without a huge intelect, going to make a DNA strand. Not in a trillion years.

That we exist proves otherwise. Doesn't it.

Besides, the creation of life has nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution only governs what happened to live after the start of life. Not during.

Another interesting evolutionary flaw is the Big bang and the matter coming from nowhere. The big bang theory seems to be highly "mystical" in principal and fairly supernatural, implying a kind of universal ideology rather than science.

The big bang has also absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Actually. Its inarguable. The fact that evolution is so inherently flawed, that is. Too many scientists know it, and I trust these scientists ideas more than you based on their credentials.
(which by the way, I was told in school that evolution had utterly stopped. By a scientific PhD no less. This is another illustration in my mind that they have no idea what to think about evolution, because it is just as absurd as creationism).

Evolution hasn't stopped. Nor in the world or humans.
He probably also misunderstood that article you quoted.

It needs a replacement. Clearly.

I don't see any reason why.

[Beatnik Bob]

Originally Posted by lycanox

Nope, that's sexual selection. Not domestication.

Sexual selection IS domestication. Domestication IS selective breeding. Dont try to confuse the too terms to mean something else.

All woman had it in varying degree. If the ones with less hair constantly have more children. The ones with much hair water out.

Thats silly. theres no reason why women with less hair mating with men with less hair are going to create a no haired woman. Besides. What makes you think a woman was ever going to be liked based on less hair? What makes you thin the ealry man liked less hairy women? thats a dumb assumption made only to explain away the fact its implausible.
What I suggest as the theory to replace this, which has a great deal more plausibility is that women never were hairy, thats why they arent hairy today.

However, Im in favour of adaptations based on environmental stimuli. which explains the creation of the races, but im not infavour of the proposterous idea that a creature can form into an entierly different creature.

Remember this equation when you want to refute that statement: E=MC2.
Allot of people dont seem to grasp what that really means. It means that energy is actually matter. (THIS is why evolution is quantum by the way). furethermore it means that energy and matter are extremely interchangeable. You cannot invent nature from something out of nowhere to form into something else, whether smaller or bigger, because you cant just MAKE it be whenever you want. Thus, you cant create matter either. you cant just make matter out of nothingness. You cant make genes or traits from thin air.

The only things that can create genes/traits are the following:
THE SUN

Nothing else can create that gene from nowhere. Only something like the Sun can provide such a vast amount of enrgy that we can absorb it and use it. But even then you cant have the Sun make you have genes to evolve.

Besides, a solar powered existence is very plausible, but thats NOT what evolution states. Thats anothet flaw that you could replace evolution with. the fact that traits are really formed from the Sun, NOT breeding, because I dont care how much you have sex, the humping alone inst going to create enough energy (let alone it cant be chanelled) to make your offspring cary an extra gene.

Evolution states mating and sharing of genes and stimulation of that sort create new species, it doesnt account for the fact that the ONLY form of evolution is adaptation aggravated by the Sun. Our skin are solar panels.

Sexual selection can be changed with trends. And doesn't really need to have a point.

Yes. And presumably we should all be hairy today.

Females liked hair. Males didn't. Why they liked it that way is unknown.

This is the main flaw. Because earlly sex wasnt necessarily consentual. You think primal man fell in love with a woman and wooed her till she loved him for his hairy chest? WRONG. The man saw a woman, no matter how hairy he was, and he made her his bride. Its completely random, and the fact that we are what we are today cannot be explained by evolution. It was all completely random, because sex isnt necessarily based on looks as it is based on power. The strong man in the tribe is going to get allot of women. Monogomy is a fairly new idea. The powerful man is going to get numerous brides, and a large portion of the other men may never mate at all.
These ideas you put for are silly at most. Humans dont domesticate themselves, and they havnt been doing anything to make us what we are today. Everything in nature seems to point away from evolution.

Traids are a better term. But yes, traits pop up all the time.
And whether or not they survive depends on selective influences from the environment.

Oh, right. so the environment is sentient enough to mold humans as they please?

Genes are basically just building codes for a human body. Change the gene and the body changes aswell.

Yes, and what scientists and geneticists know is that it isnt plausible that something so perfect, symetrical and such a perfect structure as the DNA could be formed from amino acids.
Frankly you have no credentials to spew such nonsense. These people know theres a ploblem with it. And Ill have to trust them on that not having studied DNA for a living.

The quantum level has very little to do with evolution.

Right....of course. Because a single cell organisms ACTUALLY evolved from multiple celled organisms....

PFFFFT...quantum science has everything to do with evolution. From DNA to atoms. Perhaps you should look into it.

Actually we haven't found any flaw in it yet.

WE? Are you a Genetic engineer or something? If you are I apolagize for doubting you and will take your statement seriously.

But by the way, it seems the rest of your scientific peers HAVE found flaws in it (that would often take another Genetic engineer to understand unfortunately).

Which is why most of the DNA is currently stuck on a viral level. It only took one cell to seed the world.

That, like many other statements of yours that i respond to, doesnt actually answer the question....

That we exist proves otherwise. Doesn't it.

No. Thats what is being debated here. you cant use that as an answer because it is under scrutiny.

The big bang has also absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Alright. what does evolution suggest happend in the beginning? Enlighten me.

Evolution hasn't stopped. Nor in the world or humans.
He probably also misunderstood that article you quoted.

He was a scientific PhD if you rememeber.

[iulian28ti]

Yes, and what scientists and geneticists know is that it isnt plausible that something so perfect, symetrical and such a perfect structure as the DNA could be formed from amino acids.
Frankly you have no credentials to spew such nonsense. These people know theres a ploblem with it. And Ill have to trust them on that not having studied DNA for a living.

Really ? Which scientists ? Read some more.
What you are saying is... chemical elements can't combine into amino acids, which at their turn, combined, and after millions of years of evolution the DNA reached the stage where there are thousands of sequences stacked one on top of the other.
That's what you should understand about DNA: it did not "appear", it was formed.
And what you need is only one bacteria able to divide for life, thus evolution to start.

WE? Are you a Genetic engineer or something? If you are I apolagize for doubting you and will take your statement seriously.

But by the way, it seems the rest of your scientific peers HAVE found flaws in it (that would often take another Genetic engineer to understand unfortunately).

As i stated in a previous post, the DNA isn't "dead". It suffers changes due to many factors.
That, combined with the complexity, thus adaptation of life is what drives evolution.

You are trying to deny a very complex theory by analyzing very small ideas, missing the bigger picture in which there are more players playing the game of evolution, over extremely extended periods of time.

He was a scientific PhD if you rememeber.

Evolution cannot "stop". We can evolve into lower humans if the environment needs it, if certain characteristics as bigger mandible over bigger brain are needed.

He was a scientific PhD if you rememeber.

Ooooooohhhhhh !!!! That's a fallacy !

[lycanox]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Sexual selection IS domestication. Domestication IS selective breeding. Don't try to confuse the too terms to mean something else.

No it isn't.
Sexual selection doesn't have another species forcing people to breed with each other and removing the imperfect children from the gene pool.

Thats silly. theres no reason why women with less hair mating with men with less hair are going to create a no haired woman. Besides. What makes you think a woman was ever going to be liked based on less hair? What makes you thin the ealry man liked less hairy women? thats a dumb assumption made only to explain away the fact its implausible.

The mind is irrational. It doesn't need a reason all the time.

And yes. if you only pick less haired woman you will eventually get no hair anymore.
Because the hairy ones get less chance to reproduce. Which means that the hairy genetic codes thin out between all the less hairy genetic code. Like an drop of ink in the water.

What I suggest as the theory to replace this, which has a great deal more plausibility is that women never were hairy, thats why they arent hairy today.

The problem is that we know for sure that we had hair in the beginning. You would have a hard time explaining where that woman came from.

However, Im in favour of adaptations based on environmental stimuli. which explains the creation of the races, but im not infavour of the proposterous idea that a creature can form into an entierly different creature.

What result do constant small changes have on the long term? What force is forcing the animal to stay the same?

Remember this equation when you want to refute that statement: E=MC2.
Allot of people dont seem to grasp what that really means. It means that energy is actually matter. (THIS is why evolution is quantum by the way). furethermore it means that energy and matter are extremely interchangeable. You cannot invent nature from something out of nowhere to form into something else, whether smaller or bigger, because you cant just MAKE it be whenever you want. Thus, you cant create matter either. you cant just make matter out of nothingness. You cant make genes or traits from thin air.

That is like saying that each carpenter needs a universal degree in quantum science because a hammer is made out of atoms.

The only things that can create genes/traits are the following:
THE SUN

How so?

Nothing else can create that gene from nowhere. Only something like the Sun can provide such a vast amount of enrgy that we can absorb it and use it. But even then you cant have the Sun make you have genes to evolve.

You only need a sun to make certain atoms. Not to make molecules like DNA.
These form by simply placing the various atoms together.

Besides, a solar powered existence is very plausible, but thats NOT what evolution states. Thats anothet flaw that you could replace evolution with. the fact that traits are really formed from the Sun, NOT breeding, because I dont care how much you have sex, the humping alone inst going to create enough energy (let alone it cant be chanelled) to make your offspring cary an extra gene.

Actually just the chromosomes colliding with each other is enough to cause severe mutations. You can create bacteria with new traits by just putting them in a cold and hot water.

Evolution states mating and sharing of genes and stimulation of that sort create new species, it doesnt account for the fact that the ONLY form of evolution is adaptation aggravated by the Sun. Our skin are solar panels.

The sun is just one of the many sources of mutation.

Yes. And presumably we should all be hairy today.

Or not.

This is the main flaw. Because earlly sex wasnt necessarily consentual. You think primal man fell in love with a woman and wooed her till she loved him for his hairy chest? WRONG. The man saw a woman, no matter how hairy he was, and he made her his bride. Its completely random, and the fact that we are what we are today cannot be explained by evolution. It was all completely random, because sex isnt necessarily based on looks as it is based on power. The strong man in the tribe is going to get allot of women. Monogomy is a fairly new idea. The powerful man is going to get numerous brides, and a large portion of the other men may never mate at all.

One, even rape is selective of nature. The pretty girls get raped more.
Two, As a pack animal, the majority of our sex was conventional.

These ideas you put for are silly at most. Humans dont domesticate themselves, and they havnt been doing anything to make us what we are today. Everything in nature seems to point away from evolution.

We haven't selected certain traits and actively destroyed the others as we sometimes do in domestication with humans. Our evolution is mostly based on sexual selection and natural selection.

Oh, right. so the environment is sentient enough to mold humans as they please?

The environment is not sentient. The process is not sentient.
Its just something that happens. Like an apple falling from the tree.

Yes, and what scientists and geneticists know is that it isnt plausible that something so perfect, symetrical and such a perfect structure as the DNA could be formed from amino acids.

Actually all they have to do is toss chains of amino acids in water and chemistry does the rest.

And have you ever seen a snow crystal. Those structures are a millions of time more perfect and complex than the structure of DNA. And yet they form naturally.

Frankly you have no credentials to spew such nonsense. These people know theres a ploblem with it. And Ill have to trust them on that not having studied DNA for a living.

If you have studied DNA for a living. You really should get some extra classes on Evolution. First you claimed that genetics have nothing to do with evolution, and now you claim that all live came from the sun.

Right....of course. Because a single cell organisms ACTUALLY evolved from multiple celled organisms....

The other way around.

PFFFFT...quantum science has everything to do with evolution. From DNA to atoms. Perhaps you should look into it.

That is still only chemistry.
Quantum science is how atoms are constructed.

WE? Are you a Genetic engineer or something? If you are I apolagize for doubting you and will take your statement seriously.

I am a microbiologist.
An field in science that constantly is being confronted with evolution.

And yes. I have once genetically modified an organism.

But by the way, it seems the rest of your scientific peers HAVE found flaws in it (that would often take another Genetic engineer to understand unfortunately).

Again, what flaws.

That, like many other statements of yours that i respond to, doesnt actually answer the question....

How not?

No. Thats what is being debated here. you cant use that as an answer because it is under scrutiny.

You claimed that DNA couldn't form under natural settings.
Which is obviously untrue because that would mean that we cannot exists.

Alright. what does evolution suggest happened in the beginning? Enlighten me.

Nothing. It has nothing to do with it.

Its like asking what role windows or World of Warcraft had in the construction of the first computer.

He was a scientific PhD if you rememeber.

That doesn't make him immune for making mistakes. Or you immune of misunderstanding his point.

[gazbom]

Originally Posted by Sabacthani

Hello, before posting any links or scientific data - I'd like to get a couple views on how old some people think humanity is, was, or could be? Does anyone think that humans may have been around for millions of years?

Imagine if this were true and we, at this stage in civilization think we are the pinnacle of what humans have ever been..

First my opinion and after some input I'll post links that I think are viable to this question.

I believe mankind has been around for millions of years. Yes millions, the earth recycles itself via earthquake, tsunami, and various other earth changing events to include non earthly events, with few survivors. Some of these survivors retain knowledge and "try" to rebuild and this scenario is were we get some of the ancient artifacts that are found throughout the world. What if ancient civilizations were based on these survivors and there were no brickmasons, no mechanics, no artist or mathematicians, no doctors... or better yet a few of each located in random areas of the world.

Which would explain why some ancient civilizations seemed to pick up the pieces much faster then others where some professions did not survive. For instance most people would think that brain surgery is a modern medical procedure. Well, theres proof of ancient brain surgery. This isn't to far fetched and it just takes an open mind to understand we are just in the cyber and fossil fuel age.

Some examples (without links yet) are the baghdad battery - the grooved spheres (which were dated to 2 billions years plus some) and there are many more. Archeology is kinda of my new interest along with various fields of astrology - astrophysics - astrobiology - theoretical physics to name a few. In a way they all tie in together.

I do understand that subject matter is viewed as an attack on Christianity and would further state I was once a Christian so save yourself the trouble....

Anyways - thoughts?

5,222 years.

[lazserus]

Originally Posted by gazbom

5,222 years.

Wow, you state it so bluntly. I'm curious how you came up with this...number. I mean, considering we have art and "literature" from humans dating back AT LEAST 40,000 years.

Just to keep the jackals at bay, I put literature in quotations. Cognitive counting systems recorded with simple devices and cave paintings can easily be considered literature. I won't give a lesson in prehistoric culture. I think those with functioning frontal lobes can agree with me.

It does appear, however, there is a knuckle fight going on between two whom each are debating something a little deviant from the topic. I'm an ass, so I'm gonna throw in my $60 and not read all the arguments.

First and foremost, evolution is not a thinking mechanism. There are no decisions made by evolving species nor some omniscient wizard atop a cloud. No matter how many times it is posted and explain, even as if the reader was a child, you chuckleheads just can't wrap your head around the theory of evolution. I will dumb it down more than it already has been, then slap some comments in the pee hole.

By definition evolution is the genetic change within a localized fauna. Changes can occur all over the world at the same time, but they aren't following orders. The genetic change within a fauna group is not necessarily beneficial. An evolving animal does not always evolve in a way that helps it perpetuate its species. Many prehistoric animals evolved in ways that caused their species' extinction.

They aren't devolving. Devolving is the merging of species into one

The term "devolving" is being used more and more these days and it's such shite. Devolution requires regression, which defies the entire mechanism of evolution. NOTHING DEVOLVES, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEVOLUTION. I'll ignore the bullshit definition of merging species. That's just plain dumb. Give me an example of a zebra merging with a lion. Give me an example of a frog merging with a salamander.

Yeah, it would not conciously be working towards something, but it still strives toward betterment. Of course it never would have known (and for the sake of this argument we are going to have to give it life like characteristics) humans would become what they are today...but it never the less worked on improving the human brain. This equals betterment. Progression. Improvement. Mejora. Verbesserung. Teesbechah....

No, no NO! Evolution does not strive for betterment. Evolution is the result of a complex series of natural mechanics, the most obsure being Natural Selection. Skipping ahead, modern humans didn't evolve in the fairytale way you presume they did. Yes, human ancestral species developed larger brains, but we aren't the end result. Our closest cousins, Homo neandertalensis, had a larger cranial capacity and larger brain than we have today. Furthermore, there are areas of the brain we believe were more active in earlier hominids now dormant in our own species. Mastering the atom isn't a sign of intelligence. Einstein will back me on this.

Then explain what's different in say, a lions will to evolve, and a humans...the lion did not choose to get a larger brain, it chose a swift speed and a an array of killing abilities

There is no "will" to evolve. There is no choice to evolve. Evolution occurs when the natural world's niches have openings. The wild cat hasn't changed much in hundreds of thousands of years. The largest wild cat was the smiledon (saber-toothed cat), and it was not a runner nor did it hunt the way modern large cats do today. In fact, smiledon's hunting methods were much more efficient than modern lions! Smiledon killed its prey with one clamp on the throat as lions require at least 5 minutes to fell their prey.

...and it seems the monkey did not, and still you seem to say technology is trivial, though for what other reason would the monkey have evolved a larger brain for? Especially as it requires a massive amount of resources and blood.

You have no business debating evolution if you think humans evolved from monkeys. This statement destroys every other you make in the future. The end. Game over, thanks for playing. Come back when you know where modern Homo sapien sapiens came from.


Shit, I only looked at one thread and I'm already exhausted by the ignorance here (ignorance doesn't mean stupidity for you stupid people). I'll try again once I've had a whisky and a car crash.

[Beatnik Bob]

WOW. What flaws. Where can I start. (I guess Ill take the time)

Ill start in the beginning.

Flaw number 1. Evolutionary Age system
Alright, the big bang.
A trememndous amount of energy released, but the energy stops at the confines of the universe, which is sphere shaped, and "rolls" the matter into what it is today. This is why matter in the universe is round.
Meteors do not make planets. If I have a mac truck and a mac truck and make them collide, I am not going to create a bigger make truck, and its clearly not going to be spherical. That is flawed logic.
Sub-flaw number 2.
The big bang happened at the speed of light. What that means is that things were created at a fenominally fast level. It happened like this *snaps finger*. Actually, it happened much faster than that.
Big bang energy literally contained all the energy in the universe, it made everything instantly. All evolutionary processes and everything in existance today was created at the speed of light. Time as you know it today did not exist.
Everything became everything in small amounts of time.
(You could say that for less than a second (if even that) we were once apes. We only exited as apes in the sense that all possibilities exist within a single photon.)

Flaw number 2. The Ice Age.
Animals do not "evolve" to extreme sizes (ie mammoths) in a period that has a lack of sustenance to create its size. Period...

Flaw number 3. Rock layers.
Have you ever put things in a bowl and seen the heavier layers settle on one level, and the lighter layers settle on top? Ok then.
Im not religious, but only a massive liquid water flood can create these layers so fast. allowing the sediments to settle like so.

Flaw number 4. DNA
This topic is basically moot and irrelevant now, but in order to create a DNA strand, it requires exact matches.
Amino acids have to attach JUST RIGHT. It would literally be like billions of slot machines (billions of amino acids) but each slot machine is going to have to get 3 of, say, grapes. 3 grapes every single time, everytime, otherwise the DNA strand is just going to be a pile, rather than a strand.
There is absolutely nothing compelling an amino acid to create the DNA found in nature.
Nothing.

Flaw number 4. Assumption.
Scientists have now spent their whole life making assumptions in evolution, based on the assumption that the early universe theory is unflawed. Basically, since all other theories of evolution that branch off of the original "beginning" scenario are founded in flawed science, the whole theory needs to be rethought now.

Evolution has got to be rethought. Its a theory, and the fact that it is treated like an undisputed religion is unhealthy for a scientific process.
People who prove evolution wrong shouldnt be scoffed at by the evolutionist bigots who dont like hearing their ideology refuted. The people who prove it wrong should be considered great minds who are reforming an imperfect theory that never WAS supposed to have all the answers.

Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. The LAW of gravity. The LAW of reletivity, ETC. there is no law of evolution because it is still a theory that should never be considered a complete and valid process.
Anywho...

I am a microbiologist.
An field in science that constantly is being confronted with evolution.

And yes. I have once genetically modified an organism.

Youre ok in my book then!
But still not qualified in the more serious flaws. You're free to refute and give your take on the DNA thing though, if you have actually studied DNA in depth...

[DontBeAfraid]

Flaw number 1. Evolutionary Age system
Alright, the big bang.
A trememndous amount of energy released, but the energy stops at the confines of the universe, which is sphere shaped, and "rolls" the matter into what it is today. This is why matter in the universe is round.
Meteors do not make planets. If I have a mac truck and a mac truck and make them collide, I am not going to create a bigger make truck, and its clearly not going to be spherical. That is flawed logic.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with the big bang... and the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE is what makes things spherical you [radio edit]. Your analogy is so ridiculous and so indicative of a piss poor education and intuition that Im amazed you can even use your computer....

Im sorry, you didnt deserve to read that about yourself.

Have you ever put things in a bowl and seen the heavier layers settle on one level, and the lighter layers settle on top? Ok then.
Im not religious, but only a massive liquid water flood can create these layers so fast. allowing the sediments to settle like so.

And Im not a geologist but I know how sedimentary rock is formed...

Flaw number 2. The Ice Age.
Animals do not "evolve" to extreme sizes (ie mammoths) in a period that has a lack of sustenance to create its size. Period...

lol... thats right, they go EXTINCT.

There is absolutely nothing compelling an amino acid to create the DNA found in nature.
Nothing.

Nothing... except the laws of physics.

Scientists have now spent their whole life making assumptions in evolution, based on the assumption that the early universe theory is unflawed.

Actually, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the big bang...

Basically, since all other theories of evolution that branch off of the original "beginning" scenario are founded in flawed science, the whole theory needs to be rethought now.

The beauty of science is that everything that falls within it is rethought and retooled EVERY time new evidence is found that doesnt fit the accepted model.

Evolution has got to be rethought. Its a theory, and the fact that it is treated like an undisputed religion is unhealthy for a scientific process.

You dont seem to know the difference between one of YOUR theories and a scientific theory... Did you know that gravity is just a theory,,, So is electromagnetism.

Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. The LAW of gravity. The LAW of reletivity, ETC. there is no law of evolution because it is still a theory that should never be considered a complete and valid process.
Anywho...

lol, should have read ahead. Gravity IS A THEORY. And so is relativity. Go take a 101 class from your local college... or spend a half hour in the library...

You're free to refute and give your take on the DNA thing though, if you have actually studied DNA in depth...

You are free to "debunk" the DNA evidence as soon as you have a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method.

[lazserus]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Flaw number 1. Evolutionary Age system
Alright, the big bang.

Big bang theory has no relevance to biological evolution. Consult a physicist for this argument.

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Flaw number 2. The Ice Age.
Animals do not "evolve" to extreme sizes (ie mammoths) in a period that has a lack of sustenance to create its size. Period...

This is a fair argument and you're right to an extent. Midget mammoths and pigmy human remains have been found in remote locations where food was more scarce. It is accepted that organisms tend to "shrink" when less food is available and less grazing real estate is available. This has nothing to do with the Ice Age. Food was plenty abundant in the last Ice Age. The entire globe was not covered in snow and ice. The smaller mammoths and human decendents were not found in regions of the planet where ice reached.

Before you can really argue this point, you have to have a basic understanding of metabolic rates within varying organisms. Many of the larger mammalian organisms became large before the onset of the Ice Age. Those species more capable of attaining sustanance efficiently lived longer. Some animals only need to eat their weight in food once per year to survive. Modern crocs and aligators have ancestry leading back to the beginning of the Cretaceous, and they certainly survived the Ice Age. Available food does play part in size, however it is not the only factor. Because mammoths and wooly rhinos were covered in thick fur, they retained heat much longer than many other animals, allowing them to go longer without food.

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Flaw number 3. Rock layers.
Have you ever put things in a bowl and seen the heavier layers settle on one level, and the lighter layers settle on top? Ok then.
Im not religious, but only a massive liquid water flood can create these layers so fast. allowing the sediments to settle like so.

Your logic is not flawed here, but your knowledge of the anatomy of different rocks is. If what you say was true, Hawaii would not exist. Not all rocks are heavier than water, believe it or not. The Hawaiin islands are a result of perpetual volcanic activity from the sea floor. Part of the reason some of the islands exist is because layers upon layers were stacked atop one another. The same goes with sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary deposits aren't always made in water, thus they don't always sink. When deposits are made atop other rocks, do you honestly expect a heavier rock to magically sink below a lighter, solid rock?

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Flaw number 4. DNA
This topic is basically moot and irrelevant now, but in order to create a DNA strand, it requires exact matches.

Gathering DNA from extinct animals is very difficult. That doesn't mean we haven't mapped the genome of some extinct organisms. Keep in mind this science is very new and there are plenty of obstacles. That doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means it is difficult. We've fully mapped the genome of Homo sapiens, Homo neandertalensis, and even the mammoth.

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Flaw number 4. Assumption.
Scientists have now spent their whole life making assumptions in evolution, based on the assumption that the early universe theory is unflawed. Basically, since all other theories of evolution that branch off of the original "beginning" scenario are founded in flawed science, the whole theory needs to be rethought now.

You are way off here. Evolution does not require the big bang theory, nor does it require a 4.6 billion year old earth. These "assumptions" you speak of were assumptions in the 1990s. I think it's time you update your brain with current data. Yes, a great deal of evolution is still mysterious. We do, however, have a damned good idea of how it works. This idea isn't based off some group of chumps sitting in a room throwing bullshit ideas together. It's based off decades of data from every scientific field imaginable.

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Evolution has got to be rethought. Its a theory, and the fact that it is treated like an undisputed religion is unhealthy for a scientific process.

People who prove evolution wrong shouldnt be scoffed at by the evolutionist bigots who dont like hearing their ideology refuted. The people who prove it wrong should be considered great minds who are reforming an imperfect theory that never WAS supposed to have all the answers.

Evolution doesn't need to be rethought or reinvented. It's a very sound theory at the moment. People debating against evolutionary theory do not "prove" it doesn't exist. They are scoffed at because they think they've proved something. 99% of the time those arguing against the theory know less than nothing about it. I don't care what you subscribe to, but you best know what you're talking about before you call it dogma.

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. The LAW of gravity. The LAW of reletivity, ETC. there is no law of evolution because it is still a theory that should never be considered a complete and valid process.

This is why you shouldn't be arguing. You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Gravity is theory. Relativity is theory. Evolution is theory. Take a few years and study MOND, Newtonian mechanics, and General Relativity in at least some detail. Then come back here and call them laws with a straight face. There are NO laws. Everything is theory. Since you don't understand the fundamentals of science, which most people are taught by the 8th grade, you have zero room to argue here with any weight. You're confusing theory with hypothesis and law with theory.