 |
|
Lars-E
|
|
Finally after many posts there are som references to real mutation experiments. Now the best example so far presented is cancer which is not beneficial.
Anyways there are millions of focciles and many have been found. Mammals, insects, etc. But where are the intermediates? None has been found.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Can you tell me why there are similarities between mammals? The best theory so far is evolution. |
I'm similar to my sister. The best theory so far is that she evolved from me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Another example of beneficial mutation is the nylon-eating bacterium. This needs nylon to survive, and nylon did not exist before 1937. Therefore the ability could not have been present in the population, it is the result of mutation (and genetic analysis has shown exactly what type of mutation in which gene).
|
If nylon didnt exist before 1937 how can this relate to the theory of evolution? That is if evolution didnt start in 1937.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tolls
Nope...it shows that you're related, in the same way that the similarity between us and chimps shows that we are related. |
Just to use your own logic. A cat and a tree are not similar thus are not related.
quote:
Do we really have to go through the intermediates again? If you had the faintest idea of what you were talking about you wouldn't post this... |
You sure have evolved to a high level of argumentation haven't you.
quote:
It relates because before 1937 there was no nylon, and no nylon consuming bacteria...after 1937, with nylon entering the food chain (deposited in rivers below the manufacturing plants) bacteria evolved to consume the nylon. |
So the bacterias who didnt exist before 1937 and nylon which didnt exist before 1937 is connected to a evolution process that started taking place millions of years before that.
Ok, here's what. Anything is possible. Thus evolution is possible. I mean come on. Probabilities!!
I have to state again Tolls that you and true evolution scientists don't agree at all. I have pointed this out previously. You say "it's been proven". They say "it's impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still do".
So who doesn't have the faintest idea of what we're talking about? Nobel Prize winners and esteemed professors or you?
Now to follow your own rules of logic it would be the scientists that were wrong. The arrogance is just mindstaggering. It's far out. Teenagers in here know a lot more about evolution and probabilities than esteemed scientists.
Are you gonna keep this up?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tolls
|
 |
Hereford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
"A cat and a tree are not similar thus are not related."
Well, not very closely related, no...what are you getting at?
"You sure have evolved to a high level of argumentation haven't you."
Well, we have been through the intermediates stuff here numerous times before...unless you have a different view of what classes as an intermediate, so maybe you ought to say what you would expect to see in the fossil record.
"Ok, here's what. Anything is possible. Thus evolution is possible. I mean come on. Probabilities!! "
What probabilities?
"So the bacterias who didnt exist before 1937 and nylon which didnt exist before 1937 is connected to a evolution process that started taking place millions of years before that. "
Now you're confusing me...what on earth are you going on about?
The appearance of bacteria that can digest nylon, which are related to bacteria that cannot digest nylon, that appeared in the rivers below factories that output nylon is somehow nothing to do with evolution? Eh? Did these bacteria just go *pop* and appear?
"You say "it's been proven". They say "it's impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still do"."
Can you give me a cite on that second quotation? I don't know of many biologists who would say that...
"Teenagers in here know a lot more about evolution and probabilities than esteemed scientists. "
What esteemed scientists? Name names, as well as what their PhD's are in...
And I do hope you're not calling me a teenager...I am told I look younger than my years, but that would be rather ridiculous...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Lars-E:
You asked for examples of beneficial mutations. I provided some. The bugs in the Ames test get a mutation which is beneficial to them. And so did the nylon-eating bacteria.
When we claim that evolution involves millions of mutations in the distant past, you object because you want evidence of them happening now. Yet when we provide examples of beneficial mutations happening now, you object that they didn't happen in the distant past!
Creationists try very hard to avoid seeing the very, very obvious. It's the same story with "transitional fossils". There is no doubt that humans are descended from apes (or, to be more precise, humans ARE apes), and there are plenty of transitional fossils. And yet they insist on separating them into "manlike apes" and "apelike men" (without any basis for doing so, even the creationists themselves cannot agree on which is which).
All the evidence we have is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true. We expect to see a pattern of common descent, and we do. We expect to see transitional fossils, and we do. We expect to see beneficial mutations, and we do. We expect to see natural selection, and we do. We expect that DNA analysis will show the same pattern of relationships as the fossils, and it does. And so on, and on, and on...
And all the "esteemed scientists" agree that evolution is fact.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Your argument has been thorough refuted before. The fatal flaw in your argument is that an organ such as the eye must be formed in entirely. This is clearly false. Huge numbers of species have eyes; these eyes are vastly different. Some of the eyes are "half formed," i.e., they aren't as functional as human eyes. |
Yes UR, we all already know that there are different eyes. But my question is: Why the heck doesn't every specie have exactly the same kind of eye, if they had exactly the same time to "evolve"?
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Creationists try very hard to avoid seeing the very, very obvious. It's the same story with "transitional fossils". There is no doubt that humans are descended from apes (or, to be more precise, humans ARE apes), and there are plenty of transitional fossils. And yet they insist on separating them into "manlike apes" and "apelike men" (without any basis for doing so, even the creationists themselves cannot agree on which is which). |
What a bunch of crap.  This one I'll let UR say that's ridiculous (he said it before about humans and apes, IIRC). 
Jack, to you I have this simple question:
Why didn't every ape evolve into humans?
About those butterflies mutating, let me give one example:
You just stare into the sun for one hour without blinking or having any eye protection. What will happen? You'll go blind! Every one's following up to here, right?
Now, didn't the eye mutate? Didn't it lost some properties?
Or African people? Aren't they (much) darker than scandinavian people?
My point is that there are some event-driven mutations, but that does not prove that mutations are happening all the time in every species, neither it shows the survival of the best species!
You evolutionists are all happy when you prove mutations happened in Earth's flora or fauna, but you just can't answer how did life appear in the first place! Because if evolution did happen there's no way Earth would bear so much bio-diversity.
quote:
Originally posted by Tolls
Well, not very closely related, no...what are you getting at? |
He's trying to say that if we all came from the same amoeba, then why aren't we all cats, humans or trees...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I'm trying very hard not to lose my cool, but few things annoy me as much as willful ignorance.
Why aren't all apes humans? Why aren't all life-forms human, if humans are the most evolved? Because there are niches for every species on Earth! Amebae exist where they exist because they thrive there. Cats exist where they exist because they thrive there. Trees exist where they exist because they thrive there. Honest to goodness, how can you attack a theory which you obviously have no understand of? Educate yourself, before you come at evolution with all this complete nonsense.
Now as for Lars... jeez man, give it up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aaglo
|
 |
the contradiction is filled with holes...
Aug 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Yes UR, we all already know that there are different eyes. But my question is: Why the heck doesn't every specie have exactly the same kind of eye, if they had exactly the same time to "evolve"?
|
Because every species uses their eyes differently. And why? Because they live differently; cats rely on vision, moles rely on touch sensitivity.
quote:
About those butterflies mutating, let me give one example:
You just stare into the sun for one hour without blinking or having any eye protection. What will happen? You'll go blind! Every one's following up to here, right?
Now, didn't the eye mutate? Didn't it lost some properties?
Or African people? Aren't they (much) darker than scandinavian people?
My point is that there are some event-driven mutations, but that does not prove that mutations are happening all the time in every species, neither it shows the survival of the best species!
|
Damaging is not mutating. The eye lost its properties, it did not mutate. Like if you hit an egg with a sledgehammer - the egg breaks, it doesn't mutate.
I don't quite follow your african-people -comment. Of course they are darker than scandinavian people. Why scandinavians aren't as dark? Because EVOLUTION.
quote:
You evolutionists are all happy when you prove mutations happened in Earth's flora or fauna, but you just can't answer how did life appear in the first place! Because if evolution did happen there's no way Earth would bear so much bio-diversity. |
How would you know about the development of bio-diversity on earth? Are you so smart? And how can you assume that life developed only on one point at one time - there is no reason why life couldn't have generate in several different places relatively simultaneously?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aaglo
Because every species uses their eyes differently. And why? Because they live differently; cats rely on vision, moles rely on touch sensitivity. |
But why can't you start thinking on why on Earth did some species start to live "differently"? At wich point cats began to be considered cats, and why?
quote:
Originally posted by aaglo
Damaging is not mutating. The eye lost its properties, it did not mutate. Like if you hit an egg with a sledgehammer - the egg breaks, it doesn't mutate.
I don't quite follow your african-people -comment. Of course they are darker than scandinavian people. Why scandinavians aren't as dark? Because EVOLUTION. |
That a good point on the egg, but it has nothing to do with the butterflies. Those butterflies mentioned before entered into an environment adverse to their natural fauna.
We've all heard about fish exposed to nuclear waste began having 3 eyes, but is there any evidence elsewhere that any living thing "evolved" to have a third eye, when previous generations only had 2?
quote:
Originally posted by aaglo
How would you know about the development of bio-diversity on earth? Are you so smart? And how can you assume that life developed only on one point at one time - there is no reason why life couldn't have generate in several different places relatively simultaneously? |
Well, comparing myself with you I am calmly assured I'm smarter than you, because if I were in your place I wouldn't start acusing "How would you know about the development of bio-diversity on earth? Are you so smart?", but would be posting my knowledge to refute misleading information. Of course, with your attitude, I bet you would just search evolutionist arguments on bashing creationists. But I really don't give a damn. I already made my intensive research on this subject.
Life is a really big phenomenon, and the reason we are having this debate is because of the condition Earth was when Life may have started. We could go on with this for a long time (wich I don't have), but let me just tell you one thing for you to research or shut up:
If life appeared by chance, why are the 20 aminoacids needed to life are all "left-handed", when chance tells us that they should be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lars-E:
When we claim that evolution involves millions of mutations in the distant past, you object because you want evidence of them happening now. Yet when we provide examples of beneficial mutations happening now, you object that they didn't happen in the distant past! |
No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying. Reread my post.
quote:
All the evidence we have is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true. We expect to see a pattern of common descent, and we do. We expect to see transitional fossils, and we do. We expect to see beneficial mutations, and we do. We expect to see natural selection, and we do. We expect that DNA analysis will show the same pattern of relationships as the fossils, and it does. And so on, and on, and on... |
We don't see transitional fossils.
We expect to see? What happened to oldfashioned science where you observe something in nature and then make a theory out of it? Like Darwin did. Instead of trying to confirm a thought- up theory.
quote:
And all the "esteemed scientists" agree that evolution is fact. |
The not so's. The rest think it's a fact.
quote:
What probabilities? |
Some scientists say that evolution is something like we won the big lottery. It's like we can't believe it. Let says the chances are relative high like 1/200 mill. Now the chance is equal for all those 200 mill to be the correct answer. Here's the fallacy: From this you conclude that since there's an equal chance that any of the 200 is right - evolution which is one of them is right. This is more like an logical error. It doesn't make sense.
quote:
"You say "it's been proven". They say "it's impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still do"."
Can you give me a cite on that second quotation? I don't know of many biologists who would say that... |
Yes I can. I get the book tomorrow. I can send you a PM. This was a Nobel Prize winner - not many biologist are...
I'm not calling you a teenager. As for those 'esteemed' scientists I will get back to you tomorrow. Anyways, I'm talking about ppl that believe in evolution. If you wanna go to the creationists you can visit http://www.icr.org. Their credentials are listed. Harvard Phd's Oxford Phd's and are amongst them of course. And there's a growing number in Russia.
quote:
This evolution is not something that has happened in the past. It is happening all the time; that is propably why Lars-E doesn't get the connection between the nylon-eating bacteria and human evolution 500 000 years ago. |
I get the connection. Now can you tell me why the bananafly has reached the pinnacle of evolution? They won't evolve anymore.
quote:
If evolution does not happen, then the africans, indians, europeidians, mongols and aboriginals are all different species, which makes you think: how is it possible to cross-breed??? |
The can be the same species. So mutations take place when ppl cross-breed?
quote:
Honest to goodness, how can you attack a theory which you obviously have no understand of? Educate yourself, before you come at evolution with all this complete nonsense.
Now as for Lars... jeez man, give it up. |
How can I attack something that is holy to you? Blasphemy right?
When ppl have no arguments like yourself Guynemer you resort to personal attacks. If you wanna lower yourself to dirt please feel free, but don't expect me to do the same.
I have a master's ty. I was recommended to Northwestern Uni. which has the best MBA-programme in the world according to a recent edition of a business magazine. I have also studied in the states and got straight A's easily. I'm European and I must say the American school system needs improvement. At least at the lower levels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
If life appeared by chance, why are the 20 aminoacids needed to life are all "left-handed", when chance tells us that they should be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed? |
Because the "left-handed" ones will only react with other left-handers, and "right-handed" ones will only react with other right-handers. The initial self-replicating molecule had a 50% chance of being "left-handed" or "right-handed", but then all of its descendants would use the same "handedness" in their biochemistry.
This indicates either that life evolved once, or that one strain prevailed. It would be very unlikely that two types of life, using molecules of each "handedness", would develop together at the same rate: if either branch happened to gain even a slight advantage, its descendants would prevail.
quote:
Because if you say we come from apes, why are there still apes, and didn't all evolve into humans?!? That's why I want you to explain to me! What was the phenomenon that occured that only allowed some appes to massively evolve into humans, and others don't, and continue to be apes! |
Some stayed in the trees, some ventured out onto the plains. Speciation occurs after two groups of the same species get separated, and moving out into a different environment will do that.
quote:
I think we've all seen in the animal world that "deformed" offspring are killed or led to banishment from its "society". How could you truly believe in such radical evolution (unless you know jack about human and ape anatomy)? |
Humans and (other) apes have the same basic anatomy. The differences are trivial: larger brain and skull, less hair, different amounts of body fat, skeletal adaptations to walking upright. There are no organs that humans have which other apes lack, or vice versa. Similarly, all apes and monkeys share a "broken" gene for making vitamin C: because primates eat fruit and other foods containing vitamin C, we've all survived without it, except a few unfortunates who died of scurvy. Of course, the gene in humans is broken in exactly the same way as in the other primates.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Humans and (other) apes have the same basic anatomy. The differences are trivial: larger brain and skull, less hair, different amounts of body fat, skeletal adaptations to walking upright. There are no organs that humans have which other apes lack, or vice versa. Similarly, all apes and monkeys share a "broken" gene for making vitamin C: because primates eat fruit and other foods containing vitamin C, we've all survived without it, except a few unfortunates who died of scurvy. Of course, the gene in humans is broken in exactly the same way as in the other primates. |
You call that trivial?!? 
Jack, be serious! The evidence of the large brain and only humans being able to walk standing are more than enough proof that humans aren't an evolution, but a conception! 
And the different amounts of body fat and less hair shows that we, humans, aren't the same specie, because we have a different body-heating retaining system than apes!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Correction: numerous people claimed that they had found the ark. The ark used by Noah. |
you forgot about the satelite pictures.
Can you tell me why their claims, including claims from flood-denying scientists
but I'll come with some of the evidence, and you can tell me why it's not true (like we're debating  )
- 1916 Russian Tsjar Nicolaas II sent 150 man to the ararat to finally solve the mistery. They found the arc, returned with evidence, including pictures. When they came back into Russia the revolt had started. All evidence has been lost since then, but much russian soldiers (who fled to foreign nations) confirm independant to each other this story.
- The france man Fernand Navarra visisted the mountain in 1952, 1953 and 1955. He found a big squared piece of black wood. Very strange material in an area without any trees.
- 1972, NASA satelite ERTS (Earth Resource Technilogy Satlite) made detailed pictures of the area. Few of these pictures show a big squared thing in the ice near the top of the mountain. Exactly at the position old expeditions claimed to have found the arc in the past.
I'm sure you won't even think about accepting evidence from the past century (of course without any good reasons) I won't come up with those evidences. I'm sure you'll tell me in one line that this is BS as well. (you should put this in your sig: "If it doesn't fit in my opinion, it didn't happen")
quote:
Your argument has been thorough refuted before. |
every argument has, my friend.
quote:
The fatal flaw in your argument is that an organ such as the eye must be formed in entirely. This is clearly false. Huge numbers of species have eyes; these eyes are vastly different. Some of the eyes are "half formed," i.e., they aren't as functional as human eyes |
believe me, an 11-gen eye is as simplistic as possible.
But I'll be nice again, and we'll do the same calculation with a 4-gen eye. The change that a 4-gen eye is 1 out of 100000 to the 4th degree. 100000000000000000000 mutations to get it. And then we only have a very basic simplistic 4-gens eye. If you want to have this eye mutated to a 5-gen eye, the match will be 100000000000000000000 times 100000. Hence, I'm so curious how you'll calculate the number of mutations any organism needs to become a human, via whatever organism you want.
quote:
Hm. A completely flawed understanding of probability. No need even for refutation. |
who says that you pherhaps aren't just stuned and you have no clue about any way to refute this ? If that's not the case, prove it and teach me how stupid I am. Even the smartest professor is a fool as long as he keeps his mouth shut on any question he could answer.
quote:
That's not an evolutionary model. That's bollocks. |
another great example of one of UR's magnificient rebutalls ! And I'm completely stuned again !
quote:
It's like..... instead of taking one million dice and rolling them at the same time hoping to get a six all together(which will take you forever). (The chance would be six to the one millionth power.)
It's more like taking one dice and trying to roll six one million times. Which should take about six million tries. Which isn't a lot. |
cool example 
I like evolutionists that come up with good rebutalls. People like UR become boring after some time, you know. I knew civ3 would bring an improvement to these fora
but now I have to rebute it, I guess. hmmmmmmmmm.
your 'take the time' example which saves much time in the end expects that the dices ignore everytime they didn't roll 6. In that case 6000000 rolls will conclude indeed in 1000000 6's, 1000000 5's....... etc. etc. etc. (might be one more or less )
But what if we say for example that every time you trow a 5 you have to start all over............ ? Like an organism which mutates very wrong has no change to survive (natural selection)
In fact you say that time will make everything possible.
But if you fill up a box with red an white balls, and shake the box (blind)for eternity, it'll never happen that all the white balls are on top while the red balls are in the bottom of the box. Statistics even show that the red-white appearance will never come above / below 60/50 %
(homework, take a box, fill it with red and white balls....... start shaking)
The only way you could achive a total red/white seperation is by carefully watching and shaking. but in that case you would be playing god........... 
quote:
Some butterflies have beneficially mutated due to the increased pollution: they have changed the colour of their wings to match with the lichen-covered trees |
butterflies can't change the colors of their wings.
By accident one of the white (or black) butterflies got a damaged wing-color-gen so it didn't produce white (black) butterflies anymore, but (new) black (white) butterflies. In fact this mutation didn't harm the butterflies, since the new color of their wings gave them a better change to survive in the new situation. (in the past all the black butterflies died out by natural selection, but now the rules are changed, the white are killed)
But it's absolute an ancient theory that organisms change to fit better in their current living world. Like all the white people (whoms black-skin gen mutated) traveled to the north to escape from the extreme sunlights in Africa.
quote:
If a Nobel Prize winner says that it is impossible to believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. Maybe he just was making a personal statement. |
that's right, but if he would've said that evolution is a fact you would've proudly quoted him here, and if we would've made the 'personal opinion' comment you just made, you would tell us we are idiots.
quote:
Think about the mammal embryos. in the beginning they look all alike. How come? Maybe they are all evolved from one mammal species from 300 million years ago? |
pherhaps one designer ?
quote:
As for Noah's Ark: people are always finding Noah's Ark on Ararat, and it's always just another rock formation |
it is ?
I'm sure that hapened many times indeed. But wood is wood.
quote:
Do we really have to go through the intermediates again? If you had the faintest idea of what you were talking about you wouldn't post this... |
another Urban Ranger-alike answer.
Why don't you just go through it again ?
It's always that we, creationists (in fact I'm not one of them, but if I have to take a side, I chose theirs :P), have to post the theories, and you guys either rebute it or answer something like "Oh, no, not that again"
Now be a man and post your opinion about intermediates so we can shoot at it. Pherhaps we miss and it'll stand the test of time, but as long as you won't post it, it'll be a fairy tale to me.
quote:
Jack: There is no doubt that humans evolved from (other) apes. |
last time I checked the evolution theory teached us that both apes and and humans share the same precessors. But pherhaps the evolution theory has evolved again last week.
quote:
Spaniels ARE dogs, and humans ARE apes. |
humans are mamals, but we're not apes.
even if we share the same precessors as apes do, we still are no apes. Like I'm not my nephew.
I think that's for now
CyberShy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Lars-E:
quote:
We don't see transitional fossils. |
Yes, we do. There are thousands of transitional fossils throughout the fossil record. Denying their existence won't make them go away. The creationist view is "the Bible is the Word of God, therefore Genesis is true, therefore there cannot be any tansitional fossils, therefore there ARE no transitional fossils". Dogmatic thinking at its finest.
quote:
We expect to see? What happened to oldfashioned science where you observe something in nature and then make a theory out of it? Like Darwin did. Instead of trying to confirm a thought- up theory. |
This IS science. You make observations, form a theory, and then TEST the theory against further observations. Evolution has passed every such test. DNA analysis is a good example, because it wasn't available until recently: it might have contradicted evolution, but instead it confirmed it.
quote:
I'm not calling you a teenager. As for those 'esteemed' scientists I will get back to you tomorrow. Anyways, I'm talking about ppl that believe in evolution. If you wanna go to the creationists you can visit http://www.icr.org. Their credentials are listed. Harvard Phd's Oxford Phd's and are amongst them of course. And there's a growing number in Russia. |
"Creation scientists" are notorious for inventing degrees. Having been caught out so many times, some have decided to study for real degrees, and a few have made it. But nobody has ever become a creationist by being convinced by genuine scientific evidence for it (because there isn't any). Without exception, every "creation scientist" is a religious fundamentalist who denies scientific knowledge which contradicts his religious beliefs: it's just that some have learned a bit of genuine science (usually unrelated to biology).
quote:
I get the connection. Now can you tell me why the bananafly has reached the pinnacle of evolution? They won't evolve anymore. |
Creatures evolve to adapt to their environment. If the environment changes, the fly will change.
quote:
-Now, why don’t you pick an experiment on something that’s supposedly been around for millions of years – insects? You can find insect-fossiles. Even flies. There has been done mutation-experiments on the bananafly. Guess what? They all died like flies. So according to your logic this experiment denies the theory of beneficial mutations. |
To refute the claim that "there are no beneficial mutations", it is only necessary to produce examples of beneficial mutations. This has been done, therefore the claim is FALSE. End of argument.
quote:
*Intermediates
There’s an unwillingness to talk about this because of the “I-know-more-than-you” attitude. I have never mentioned intermediates on Apolyton yet a certain individual know how much I know of this. Is he a psychic or a prophet or a mindreader or just have an attitude? |
You have stated that "We don't see transitional fossils". Again, this claim is FALSE.
quote:
Conclusion
I have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between scientists and ppl in this thread. Let’s just call it divergence to be nice. With this in mind and all the opportunities given I see no further point in continuing. Feel free to start another thread or go back to bible scriptures.
I rest my case |
Correction: You have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between religious fundamentalists and people in this thread.
You lose your case. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tolls
Zealot:
My little write up was to show how one group can split into two since you asked:
"if you say we come from apes, why are there still apes"
That was all it intended to do....if it can happen in fish (see Lake Victoria) there's no reason it can't happen in apes.
We are not radically different from other apes...the difference between us and chimps is a squashed chromosome! |
Tolls, you're a nice guy, honest, but you need to be more anti-dogmatic. 
When you say: "there's no reason it can't happen in apes.", I have to say that I can't possibly agree with you. Why?
Because there's no reason why I should believe! There's no scientific evidence that apes stoped being apes at one given time, neither that men weren't still "men" at a given time!
You say that there's only one chromosome of difference between us and chimps. But if you really look deeper, chimps don't have complex communitation abilities, art development or even art appreciation, cooking abilities, engineering abilities, etc, etc, or enev give signs that they're evolving to achieve that stage one day!
Chimps will always be chimps, and humans will always be humans. There's no scientific evidence why one should consider otherwise!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2002 16:05
|