evolutionary theory wrang footprints

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">come on man. you are saying you're not arguing evolution but then you post this stuff? </div></div>
Yes as an aside.
I don't agree with evolution but that WASN'T my question.

Anyway, how can I argue with a man who knows what was going on 40 million years ago?

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

you can't.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you can't. </div></div>

You were there, weren't you, you and your scientist gods?

[Mutty]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ok. first, nothing 'chooses' to evolve. it's not like there is a list of things you can evolve to. evolution works because of environmental pressures and random mutations. over millions of years in some cases. modern humans have only been here a blink of an evolutionary eye.</div></div>

Now Monk, it is quite interesting you mention this. Many of the questions Jah Yout brought up were once my questions and some of them still are, however, this one in particular that you are addressing up above was my road block.

As you already know, a great part of my problem was that for about the first 30 years of my life, I was lost deep in the Christian mindset with about 15 of those being a Christian myself. Naturally I rejected the idea of evolution without even knowing what it was TRULY all about. Worse yet, I used to be a Jack T Chick junkie and he sold me on the idea that evolution was an evil plan of the devil designed to remove &quot;God&quot; from the equation of creation which would only set the stage for me to disregard his laws in favor of running buck wild in sin because after all, evolution removes god and if there is no god then I would just do what I want.

As a Christian all I heard were those catch phrases:

&quot;Evolution teaches that men came from apes and that's an insult to god because humans are &quot;special creations&quot; of god, created in his image and god is no ape.&quot;

&quot;Evolution seeks to remove god from people's lives.&quot;

&quot;Evolution teaches that things magically change from one thing to another.&quot;

&quot;Scientist are often atheists so they came up with evolution as an extension of their atheism&quot;

With such things in mind, it was completely out of the question for me to give evolution one ounce of attention.

Then over a year ago on a Queens (N.Y) street, I was walking with a friend of mine and the subject of evolution came up. I asked her something along the lines of what Jah Yout brought up. I asked her (being facetious), &quot;Well, if things evolve, what magic or what process would make it possible for a pig to grow wings and start to fly?&quot; In other words, I was asking how does the pig CHOOSE to do this? She answered me along the same lines you just did to Jah Yout.

Survival would lead to adaptation and those who adapt to survive would continue the species and pass on those traits to their offspring whereby the that don't eventually die out. In another instance, a parent could pass on a defect that could prove detrimental to an offspring potentially ensuring the eventual doom of the species or that line of the species. Not sure if I am saying this right, but something along that line.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you can't. </div></div>

You were there, weren't you, you and your scientist gods? </div></div>

i don't need to be in your kitchen to know you can cook your dinner with a microwave.

and you know all about bin laden being dead how exactly? since you weren't there.

you know the moon revolves around the earth how exactly? are you riding on it? the earth circles the sun, but how do you know? we have pictures of the sun how? can you look at it and see solar flares? but we know they can frak up satelites.

how do you know the pyramids were built when they were? do you know how to build one? I guess they just appeared.

someone told me there is a country called russia. but I've never been, so I guess it doesn't exist. I don't agree that it exists.

how do you know dinosaurs once roamed the earth?

why is the sky blue? you've never been in space but I guess you think it is there.

so it's quite easy to be absurd, and be completely baseless on top of that. so let's not be purposefully absurd, or pathetically ridiculous because you think you are scoring some cheap point on a forum lol. you either really want to know about this stuff or not. i'm getting to start to think you aren't really thinking about this stuff, but just posting from already formed opinions, however wrongly informed.

all i will say is you aren't going to get anywhere if you can't first accept why evolution is valid.

the simple fact of the matter, the ironic one, is that you benefit from the facts which science confirms, sight unseen, of evolution, of cosmology, etc. being right every day. your whole world is effected in unprecedented fashion by incredible advances, the knowledge of which is authored by the rigorous application of the scientific method. You live right now because of science, else some microbic pathogen long since would have rubbed out all our ancestors. A knowledge of microbial biology which, hilariously, comes to us because science has proven evolution.

you've also dodged repeatedly the facts of the human genome HERVs which are shared with other primates. or where the missing human chromosome is.

i guess you have an inquiring mind, so maybe one day you'll hit on it. you have plenty of places to pick up the threads in this exchange. maybe you would enjoy reading some Hawking.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mutty</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ok. first, nothing 'chooses' to evolve. it's not like there is a list of things you can evolve to. evolution works because of environmental pressures and random mutations. over millions of years in some cases. modern humans have only been here a blink of an evolutionary eye.</div></div>

Now Monk, it is quite interesting you mention this. Many of the questions Jah Yout brought up were once my questions and some of them still are, however, this one in particular that you are addressing up above was my road block.

As you already know, a great part of my problem was that for about the first 30 years of my life, I was lost deep in the Christian mindset with about 15 of those being a Christian myself. Naturally I rejected the idea of evolution without even knowing what it was TRULY all about. Worse yet, I used to be a Jack T Chick junkie and he sold me on the idea that evolution was an evil plan of the devil designed to remove &quot;God&quot; from the equation of creation which would only set the stage for me to disregard his laws in favor of running buck wild in sin because after all, evolution removes god and if there is no god then I would just do what I want.

As a Christian all I heard were those catch phrases:

&quot;Evolution teaches that men came from apes and that's an insult to god because humans are &quot;special creations&quot; of god, created in his image and god is no ape.&quot;

&quot;Evolution seeks to remove god from people's lives.&quot;

&quot;Evolution teaches that things magically change from one thing to another.&quot;

&quot;Scientist are often atheists so they came up with evolution as an extension of their atheism&quot;

With such things in mind, it was completely out of the question for me to give evolution one ounce of attention.

Then over a year ago on a Queens (N.Y) street, I was walking with a friend of mine and the subject of evolution came up. I asked her something along the lines of what Jah Yout brought up. I asked her (being facetious), &quot;Well, if things evolve, what magic or what process would make it possible for a pig to grow wings and start to fly?&quot; In other words, I was asking how does the pig CHOOSE to do this? She answered me along the same lines you just did to Jah Yout.

Survival would lead to adaptation and those who adapt to survive would continue the species and pass on those traits to their offspring whereby the that don't eventually die out. In another instance, a parent could pass on a defect that could prove detrimental to an offspring potentially ensuring the eventual doom of the species or that line of the species. Not sure if I am saying this right, but something along that line. </div></div>

yes that is it exactly. all mutations get passed along- beneficial and disadvantageous alike. that's why when people suggest there is a design, or an intelligence, it causes a lot of people to really wonder at what kind of plan or intelligence would create an author of the panapoly of life which used as it's mechanism some of the more horrific natural pressures. some of which we as humans barely escaped. I think recent field work has established that we were down to a population of about a 1,000 individuals at one point. Clearly, not all adaptations are actually beneficial- but they may not be enough to rub the species out, it may get lucky, and other attributes might make up for the lack, like us.

humans have a ton of these [censored]-backwards adaptations, which pop the balloon of any kind of design.

i've mentioned how many organisms who would proverbially be classified as 'lower' than man all have a gene to synthesize vitamin C. we have the same gene, but it's been damaged through mutation to no longer function. One would be forced to wonder, if there was no such thing as evolution to explain it, why that would be the case if we are a product of design. Why give us a clearly damaged gene? Why fuse a chromosome that would make it so that we and ape share ancestry. So we can get scurvy, but &quot;lower&quot; animals can't?

From the premise of there being a designer, this makes little sense. What we see in fact, is exactly what we would expect to find if our evolution was ruled not by design, but by random, pressured selection.

we're all conditioned to various extents in our ways of thinking. evolution IS a fatal blow to a lot of religions, and even some of the allegories. the only safety for God, short of making an actual, documented appearance or sending a fax, is agnosticism. But once a claim is made, it can be tested.

the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent deity is torpedoed by things like evolution- most famously layed out by epicurus and some additional work, because of what religions and even some agnostics claim for such a being or force is completely at odds with the fact that very often, 'evil' is a pressure for selection.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you can't. </div></div>

You were there, weren't you, you and your scientist gods? </div></div>

i don't need to be in your kitchen to know you can cook your dinner with a microwave.</div></div>

How do you know I have a microwave? Have you seen it? Can you prove I have one? Why are you <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">theorising and assuming</span></span> that I have a microwave?

In theory, western people of today have microwaves. So you assume I have one?

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i found the show lacking in real reasoning; they used over-simplified positions;
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well, derek was in all caps asking for simplicity.

but when i pointed out the retroviral scars in our genome, it didn't seem to register.

that gets complicated, but it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that man and ape share common descent.

<span style="font-weight: bold">just like if you had a genetic scar, your kids would inherit it, and we could tell they were your kids because of their DNA.</span>

Did you see the chart? It shows you how there can still be fish, and yet evolution from fish.</div></div>

seems like you're saying my kids could someday become fish or birds or some other non-human thing...beats me why there are still fish &amp; birds on earth getting eaten by humans...are all animals eventually going to become human?&amp; why no half-bird half human...as far as i know, no matter what genetic variations my offspring go through, i think it's safe to say they will remain human

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
funny you should bring up race;

the evolution theory's champion- darwin...
wrote that the african (or &quot;negro&quot; as they called it) &amp; australian were lower on the evolutionary ladder than europeans (or &quot;white men&quot; as they put it)...somewhere between white men and apes...that has been debunked
what else could he have been wrong about?
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">well we can't help what people are. I don't know if Darwin was really quoted as saying that, I think there is a bit of controversy about </span>it.[/b] But for the sake of argument, let's say he was a Grand Dragon of the KKK. <span style="font-weight: bold">So he was wrong about what is racist in his predictions, and the thing to realize here is that it's not anything other than other scientists <span style="font-style: italic">testing</span> his conclusions, that shows he is wrong, if those were his views. However unpalatable they may have been.</span> what you are suggesting is that cars won't work, because Ford held irresponsibly wrong views and irrationally hated Jews.
</div></div>

i will post some quotes for you:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&quot;<span style="font-style: italic">At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between <span style="font-weight: bold">man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.</span>&quot;</span>


refers to races as sub-species, and explains why they should be sub-species and not full species.

&quot;<span style="font-style: italic">In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term &quot;man&quot; ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.</span>&quot;</span>

Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343...
http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin's%20Racism.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


surely you jest when you suggest that it was other scientists who challenged or debunked those racist notions held by darwin- yes indeed his words were unpalatable as you called it;
i can prove that humans thousands of years before the birth of darwin already held knowledge of the universality &amp; equality of humankind and irrefutable laws of the universe...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
there is no question species can evolve, but darwin kind of goes haywire with his theory...
many of his premises have also been scientifically challenged as well; i don't think you can state with such authority that 'evolution is a proven fact'...too blanket a statement;

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you want the simple or do you want the complex? Of course I can emphatically state it's proven as fact. I've been repeatedly saying it, and offering you the concrete proof. And it really is proof. It's right there in the genome. There is only one way to get HERVs, genetic material is passed down. We have like a dozen HERVs.</div></div>

no matter how many times you say it does not mean it is true...you have shown me no proof that the <span style="text-decoration: underline">theory</span> of evolution as proposed by darwin has been &quot;proven&quot;...
the fact that supposedly newer species co-exist with the original species they supposedly evolved from with no intermediaries to be found stops evolution flat in its tracks...it's common sense;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There have in fact been challenges to evolutionary theory, but they've never yet falsified it. Never. Not once. Oh something like a set of footprints will come along, but nothing to change the fact of evolution.
</div></div>
what is the fact? again evolution is a broad term...what do you keep stating is a 'fact'?
that we and apes are from a common ancestor that split off eons ago? and before that they were fish?
and that this all came about by chance?
are those all proven facts? which ones are 'fact' and which ones aren't? you throw around the word 'fact' about events that happened possibly billions of years ago before humans even existed and flatly state it is 'facts'?
come come now...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you see where you asked for transitional fossils? And in the simple NOVA special they provided just one example? A fish with legs? But the thing to realize here is that there are gazillions of intermediate fossils.</div></div>

with all the millions of species on earth there would be abundant examples of evolution in progress...there would be humans with wings, ape-men, fish that walk upright and walk out of the sea on two legs, or some type of amphibian humanoid somewhere...and i don't mean fossils- i mean LIVING...as evolution can only occur in living things...why would the whole thing have just stopped? there are still amoebas &amp; frogs...why have they stopped evolving to 'higher' life forms...are rats a higher life form than humans? what about bacteria? they are more numerous than us...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">for some can read that as 'intelligent design has been proven impossible'...
if a harvard professor -andy knoll- does not know for sure...how can you?
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you're getting him jumbled up. he's not saying anything about 'intelligent' design, or design from the perspective that someone mapped everything out. he's saying we don't know yet, how life came into existence from pre-biotic earth. </div></div>

how am i jumbling anything?
this harvard professor says he does not know how life came about...so how can you be sure it was NOT 'intelligent design'; which is the point of my whole argument;
NONE OF US KNOW HOW LIFE STARTED...
therefore no one can say for sure whether it was by 'intelligent design' or 'random accidental occurrence' as i like to call it...evolution is kind of a side issue in this since evolution does not explain the origin of life, but it attempts to simplify life into a fantastic concept no less questionable than a literal interpretation of adam &amp; eve in the garden

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

it depends. if a bomb were to drop on your apartment, and I saw a glass dish with a rotating socket, and a key pad, and a shielded glass door, and so on and so on, I would <span style="font-style: italic">know</span> you had a microwave. If in the remnants of your refridgerator, I saw frozen, microwavable meals, I would know you probably ate microwavable meals. If a note scribbled on paper taking down instructions on how to microwave a turkey were to be found, and a similar note found in your mom's house, I would know you had the ability to cook a turkey in your microwave, and odds are you ate microwaved turkey. If in your autopsy, the remnants of stouffers frozen dinners were in there, I could say that up to 'x' amount of time before the blast, you microwaved a dinner.

If there was a dominoes pizza box, and in your credit card history a charge at dominoes, and a piece of domino's pizza was stuck to the ceiling...we could say you ordered a domino's pizza, and then check it against the tape at domino's, and hear your voice ordering a pie.

point is evidence is a [censored], and should guide speculation where there are gaps. like a giant set up of dominoes, if x than y. at least if there are gaps, your speculation can actually be prediction.

in that way, the findings of converging fields of independent inquiry, all prove each other. evolution proves micro biology. micro biology proves evolution. genetics. geology. paleontology. and on, and on, and on, and on, until any discussion about the fact of evolution, or someone agreeing or disagreeing, becomes a bit absurd.

[neutral]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

How do you know I have a microwave? Have you seen it? Can you prove I have one? Why are you <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">theorising and assuming</span></span> that I have a microwave?

In theory, western people of today have microwaves. So you assume I have one? </div></div>

LOl !.....I am going to bet you a quid you have a microwave.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

How do you know I have a microwave? Have you seen it? Can you prove I have one? Why are you <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">theorising and assuming</span></span> that I have a microwave?

In theory, western people of today have microwaves. So you assume I have one? </div></div>

LOl !.....I am going to bet you a quid you have a microwave. </div></div>

I just threw it out to win the argument.
But that's not my point.

[neutral]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

How do you know I have a microwave? Have you seen it? Can you prove I have one? Why are you <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">theorising and assuming</span></span> that I have a microwave?

In theory, western people of today have microwaves. So you assume I have one? </div></div>

LOl !.....I am going to bet you a quid you have a microwave. </div></div>

I just threw it out to win the argument.

</div></div>

Yeah,...that should teach them not to mess with you.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
seems like you're saying my kids could someday become fish or birds or some other non-human thing...beats me why there are still fish &amp; birds on earth getting eaten by humans...are all animals eventually going to become human?&amp; why no half-bird half human...as far as i know, no matter what genetic variations my offspring go through, i think it's safe to say they will remain human
</div></div>

wow. I mean...you plainly see the chart right? It appears in your browser? Because it shows exactly how there can be organisms which evolve from an original branch, and the evolved species at the same time. I mean it shows it, plain as day. Your kids won't 'turn' into fish. But millions of years down the line, your ancestors may have gills.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

i will post some quotes for you:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&quot;<span style="font-style: italic">At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between <span style="font-weight: bold">man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.</span>&quot;</span>


refers to races as sub-species, and explains why they should be sub-species and not full species.

&quot;<span style="font-style: italic">In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term &quot;man&quot; ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, <span style="font-weight: bold">it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.</span>&quot;</span>

Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343...
http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin's%20Racism.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


surely you jest when you suggest that it was other scientists who challenged or debunked those racist notions held by darwin- yes indeed his words were unpalatable as you called it;
i can prove that humans thousands of years before the birth of darwin already held knowledge of the universality &amp; equality of humankind and irrefutable laws of the universe...
</div></div>

granted. so if the builder's of the pyramid hated jews- supposing - we could learn nothing from the pyramids? if henry ford hated jews and black people, cars would cease to function? or would they still work?

when I say it is science which <span style="font-weight: bold">proves</span> that despite darwin's racism, evolution is true, I mean exactly that. I don't know what 'knowledge of the universality &amp; irrefutable laws of the universe' is all about but it's fine, I'll grant you off the cuff, it doesn't matter. Because until pathogenic microbes were dscovered, and seen to adapt and evolve, requiring new medicines, it's all we need to see that science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, evolution is correct.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
there is no question species can evolve, but darwin kind of goes haywire with his theory...
many of his premises have also been scientifically challenged as well; i don't think you can state with such authority that 'evolution is a proven fact'...too blanket a statement;

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you want the simple or do you want the complex? Of course I can emphatically state it's proven as fact. I've been repeatedly saying it, and offering you the concrete proof. And it really is proof. It's right there in the genome. There is only one way to get HERVs, genetic material is passed down. We have like a dozen HERVs.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no matter how many times you say it does not mean it is true...you have shown me no proof that the <span style="text-decoration: underline">theory</span> of evolution as proposed by darwin has been &quot;proven&quot;...
</div></div>

I don't get it. You just said there is no question species can evolve. Then you say they don't.

But that is just it. I'm not just 'saying' it to burn calories on a web forum. My bredren, I am TELLING you what the proof is. HERVs. the Human GENOME. The fact that medicine WORKS. Geology. Astronomy. Computer science. Algorithms.

I notice you still have not once mentioned any of that. A hERV is explained here.

Keep in mind, if this is not true, NO DNA EVIDENCE WOULD BE ADMISSABLE in COURT. NO DNA EVIDENCE COULD BE USED TO PROVE PATERNITY.

NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO CLEAR THEIR NAME AND GET OFF DEATH ROW. NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO GROW A HEART VALVE FROM A PIG:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/De-OkzTUDVA"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/De-OkzTUDVA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
the fact that supposedly newer species co-exist with the original species they supposedly evolved from with no intermediaries to be found stops evolution flat in its tracks...it's common sense;
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what is the fact? again evolution is a broad term...what do you keep stating is a 'fact'?
that we and apes are from a common ancestor that split off eons ago? and before that they were fish?
and that this all came about by chance?
are those all proven facts? which ones are 'fact' and which ones aren't? you throw around the word 'fact' about events that happened possibly billions of years ago before humans even existed and flatly state it is 'facts'?
come come now...
</div></div>

uh....sort of. it goes something like this:

The Theory of Evolution states that there will be a change in alleles in any given group over time. (This has been observed)

So yes, it's a fact humans and apes share common ancestry. tracing back through the tree of life, eventually all organisms will be shown to have evolved from simpler forms, over long periods of time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you see where you asked for transitional fossils? And in the simple NOVA special they provided just one example? A fish with legs? But the thing to realize here is that there are gazillions of intermediate fossils.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">with all the millions of species on earth there would be abundant examples of evolution in progress...
</div></div>

and there is. you read about the mice example? some with dark fur, some with lighter?

would you like to keep a experiment yourself? you can buy some fruit fly experiments. or you can farm.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
there would be humans with wings, ape-men, fish that walk upright and walk out of the sea on two legs, or some type of amphibian humanoid somewhere...and i don't mean fossils- i mean LIVING...as evolution can only occur in living things...why would the whole thing have just stopped? there are still amoebas &amp; frogs...why have they stopped evolving to 'higher' life forms...are rats a higher life form than humans? what about bacteria? they are more numerous than us...
</div></div>

you need to refer back to that chart. it really shows this quite clearly.

everything is currently evolving. remember the grand adaptations like wings and things occur over millions of years. You will need to identify some natural pressure as to *why* a human would develop wings. right now the natural pressures we face have niched us rather nicely.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">for some can read that as 'intelligent design has been proven impossible'...
if a harvard professor -andy knoll- does not know for sure...how can you?
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you're getting him jumbled up. he's not saying anything about 'intelligent' design, or design from the perspective that someone mapped everything out. he's saying we don't know yet, how life came into existence from pre-biotic earth. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
how am i jumbling anything?
this harvard professor says he does not know how life came about...so how can you be sure it was NOT 'intelligent design'; which is the point of my whole argument;</div></div>

BECAUSE what we observe is *not* well designed, by any standard. There's too much poor design. Everything you have gawed about, the heart etc., we are replicating <span style="font-style: italic">better</span>. Considering the health risks facing us poorly designed creatures, lol, thank God we can.

What we see only makes sense if evolution is random mutations via natural pressures.

I'm not so sure you want to be parading Mr. Knoll to make your case. But what you did was actually a typical problem once you mix up abiogenesis with evolution, which you are making it sound like Knoll has done and he wouldn't.

He said nobody can say (yet) how life began. But he never once says anything about 'intelligent' design. Or intelligent creator.

here's a bit about our professor:
<span style="font-style: italic">Dr. Andrew Knoll is the Fisher Professor of Natural History in Harvard University’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, where he studies ancient life, its impacts on the environment, and how the environment, in turn, shaped the evolution of life. In recognition of the 200th anniversary of Charles’ Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the first printing of his book, “On the Origin of Species”, the American Society for Microbiology has invited Dr. Knoll to deliver the opening lecture, titled “Microbes and Earth History,” at the society’s general meeting in Philadelphia this year.Before the dinosaurs, before trees and leaves, before trilobites, there were microbes. Vast, slimy layers of them covered the rocks and peppered the seas of the harsh, alien planet we now call Earth. Those slimy cells were our ancestors, and they played a defining role in changing that once-barren moonscape into the world we see today: a planet covered with diverse, striving life, topped by an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Dr. Knoll says he puts on his paleontologist’s hat and studies the fossil record to learn more about this ancient life, then he dons his geochemist’s hat to reconstruct Earth’s environmental history from the chemical signatures he finds in ancient sedimentary rocks. He weaves these two stories together to figure out how life has transformed the planet and how the planet has influenced the course of evolution.In this interview, I talked with Dr. Knoll about what early earth must have looked like, his involvement with the Mars rover project, and about how intelligent design concepts may well belong in high school curricula, but not in the context of science class.You can subscribe for free to Dr. Merry Buckley's Meet the Scientist podcast via iTunes, through the RSS feed with a podcast aggregator or feed reader, or by email alert. </span>

You can find several pod casts and lectures, and read some of his books.

You can't just accept what you read on the net, or throw up a cherry picked quote here and there and then mangle it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
NONE OF US KNOW HOW LIFE STARTED...
therefore no one can say for sure whether it was by 'intelligent design' or 'random accidental occurrence' as i like to call it...evolution is kind of a side issue in this since evolution does not explain the origin of life, but it attempts to simplify life into a fantastic concept no less questionable than a literal interpretation of adam &amp; eve in the garden </div></div>

we can. we can guess presently as to how life probably began- look at the video about abiogenesis. we can certainly say a lot about how life took shape after it began, and that's why we can say there was no design, certainly there is no ethical, moral, loving creator.

consider- without evolution you would have NO way to know if adam and eve were real or not.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">How did life get going on Earth? &quot;The short answer is we really don't know,&quot; Knoll acknowledges;</span>

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

Andrew H. Knoll (born 1951) is the Fisher Professor of Natural History and a Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is best known for his work on Precambrian microfossils and using stable isotopes for stratigraphic correlation, but has longstanding interests in geobiology, paleobotany, and the planetary evolution of Mars. He is a member of the Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Earth and Planetary Sciences faculty at Harvard and the National Academy of Sciences. </div></div>

http://odeo.com/episodes/24317724-MTS21-Andrew-Knoll-Ancient-Life-and-Evolution

[Mutty]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

Here is a video from one of my favorite YouTubers. He is extremely eloquent and knowledgeable and I suggest giving him a listen as he tries to clear up some common misconceptions about evolution complete with appealing examples. Oh, interestingly enough, a Jamaican is mentioned in the video.

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vss1VKN2rf8"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vss1VKN2rf8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>