If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

[spuriousmonkey]

You are answering my questions with more questions, you are supposed to be the expert here. I have listed my question, and I don't want to be decoyed.

Every time we give an answer you ignore it and hop to the next question. How many corrections does it take for you to be convinced? It is much easier for me to answer questions in return. But if you want 'an' answer. Here is one of many possible:


I'm not sure what the consensus is on prokaryotic evolution, but it seems we have 2 main groups, archea and bacteria. The archea are best known from their reputation as extremophyles. That is they have been isolated from extreme enviroments. Environments that could have been very similar to that of early life. Many of the modern archea are totally independent of the sun. For instance the ones that live at the deep sea vents. It is therefore doubtful that life started with a photosynthesizing prokaryot.

Blue-green algae or Cyanophyceae must be one of the most common organisms on this world. They are photosynthesizing prokaryotes.

It is thought that once eukaryotes evolved they 'swallowed' up prokaryot symbionts. The first eukaryotes were probably not plants, but predators eating prokaryotes. Only later eukaryotes evolved with photosynthesizing capabilities in the form of having the proper symbionts.

plants evolved from these.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Then how come we started with a very small population and ended up growing againest the odds that you have just stated that most mutations are neutral or negative....very rarely are they beneficial, and I'm sure such rare occasion will not outweight the negative impacts of mutations. Againest such odds, one would expect humanity to perish quickly if the gene was always mutated and not perfect... There was simply not enough people around to dilute the problem like we see now a day.

Selection.

It's also a fact that relatives marriage increases your risk of problems? How come it doesn't improve our gene now a day to marry our sisters and brothers....When is it safe to procreate with your sister and for your kids to procreate with you and their siblings?

I don't understand your point.

 

[Flores]

Selection.

Please do explain how such random selection may have beat the tremendous odds of detrimental mutation results in a very small population. I suggest you use some numbers and a small case study to demonstrate.

I don't understand your point.

Yes you do...As a biologist, I ask you, why are we advised not to marry our brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, ect....?? Is there a rule to this, and what are the exception to that rule that makes close relative marriage a safe one?

For example:
I will pick four healthy brothers and sisters, blonde hair, blue eyes, very pale skin, and we will make them and their children mate with each other for the next couple of hundred years.

I will also pick four healthy brothers and sisters, from the Congo, and we will make them and their children mate with each other for the next couple of hundred years.

What do you expect to see as a result to such an experiment?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Please do explain how such random selection may have beat the tremendous odds of detrimental mutation results in a very small population. I suggest you use some numbers and a small case study to demonstrate.

Natural selection, not random.

Yes you do...As a biologist, I ask you, why are we advised not to marry our brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, ect....??....... blablabla...........What do you expect to see as a result to such an experiment?

I meant, what is your point?

 

[SwedishFish]

Yes you do...As a biologist, I ask you...What do you expect to see as a result to such an experiment?

in the very near future, i foresee monkey answering all questions on this site with "this is just textbook level science"

 

[spuriousmonkey]

in the very near future, i foresee monkey answering all questions on this site with "this is just textbook level science"

I fear exactly the same thing.


Expect it to get even worse soon. I am planning to finish my damn thesis in the forseeable future. Keep your children inside.

 

[Flores]

Every time we give an answer you ignore it and hop to the next question. How many corrections does it take for you to be convinced? It is much easier for me to answer questions in return. But if you want 'an' answer. Here is one of many possible:

The answers that I'm looking for are more profound than any of the answers provided here. I want A humble answer that is comfortable to admit that despite of the fact that we see many similarities in the way things operate, we simply are not ready to tie things together and profess that we hold the key to knowledge in regards to creation. Is there such a thing as a humble science? A science that knows it's limits...A science that takes baby steps...An ethical science? All the answers you guys provide are possible theories that may be very wrong. Vomit disciplinary information that you learned in school. Unfortunately the way we think reflects our disciplined education system. A system that crowds our minds with detail and ignore the basics. A hypocrite system that looks for prototypes to understand and ignore the original design. A system that is more interested in coming up with "scientific names"..prokrophytus, enchelata, shitophyles, ect....than it's interested in teaching our biologists to be pioneer thinkers. A selfish system that is so removed from reality that would rather spend billions of dollars to create labs that mimic a tiny portion of our nature...than it's in respecting and coexisting with nature.

I have way more respect for many religionists because believe it or not, they take the most humble slow consistent approach in finding their answers. I for instance simply believe that I was created by a an entity of unknown characteristics. I may be ignorant, but I'm not a liar.

 

[Bells]

For example:
I will pick four healthy brothers and sisters, blonde hair, blue eyes, very pale skin, and we will make them and their children mate with each other for the next couple of hundred years.

I will also pick four healthy brothers and sisters, from the Congo, and we will make them and their children mate with each other for the next couple of hundred years.

What do you expect to see as a result to such an experiment?

Isn't that a question that you should be asking creationists Flores? After all, don't creationists believe that God created man and then woman and these two individuals then went on to have children and populate the world? Children who ended up mating with each other if we are to believe the biblical stories told. So Flores, I guess to answer your question, if you are a creationist, you should look in the mirror and answer your own question. What do you see as the result of God's experiment after creating Adam and Eve?

What does the notion of creation give you? Just questions and answers based on mere faith and wishful thinking. Flores, evolution has so many questions and so many answers. The facts are there if you would only open your eyes and look at them instead of clinging to blind faith in something that has given you no proof whatsoever.

Flores, why is it that at the start of this whole argument you were a believer in evolution and suddenly you've become a creationist? Pick a stance Flores and stick to it. In this line of thought, one cannot stand on both sides of the banks and believe in both. You are either a believer in evolution or a believer of creation. So which are you exactly? You've gone from being an evolutionist and then twisting evolution to suit your own needs and you come out sounding like a creationist.

 

[davewhite04]

Hiya James,

They can learn sign language to some extent. They lack the vocal apparatus for human-like speech.

Do you consider this important?

Yes.

Thanks

See the links provided by other people above. There are about 8 or 9 known transitional fossil species between ambulocetus and modern whales.

I’ll take your word on this one.

I think at this stage you'll need to define the words "theory" and "fact" for me. Then I will be able to tell you in your own terms which evolution is. As I said earlier, all useful scientific statements are theories.

Ok. Australia exists I have no doubt, I have never been myself but I’ve met people in London and they sound slightly different to me, our accents are different. I’ve seen Australia on the TV, I’ve seen it on my map, I’ve read about it in books(I think), I have concluded that Australia does in fact exist. Do you agree? Evolution exists too, but I have never seen any evidence that tells me that we came from an ape like animal, so I call it a theory. As far as I can see it cannot be proven. Hope I didn’t sound pompous there, I didn’t intend to.

Do you have any relatives who have died without having children (e.g. an aunt or uncle)? If so, then there you have an example of a creature different to any other creature which died without reproducing. As to the matter of "categories", you need to be more specific as to what you mean by that.

I have had a relative who died without bearing children. She was a human being I’m sure.

Yes, and a giraffe's long neck makes it physically different in the grand scheme of things, too. So what?

Well we can conclude that we have bigger brains then giraffes but they have longer necks then us.

When you say "we were once ape like animals", what exactly do you mean? Nobody alive today was ever an ape like animal,

Good point.

except to the extent that all humans are ape like animals. Evidence tells us that humans share a common ancestor with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas etc.). That evidence is factual. You seem to disagree with this. On what basis, may I ask?

I think we share genes with more than just apes.

Define "fact" for me, and you'll have your answer.

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. (Got this from www.dictionary.com)

Dave

 

[Flores]

Natural selection, not random.

And how does natural selection work exactly? Does nature favors a certain answers? Are we predestined then? Are all the answers recorded in the book of nature? Atheists must believe in destiny and god, only that they call it nature.

Do you think the cave man studied his partener's genes so extensively before he decided to hump her?

 

[Flores]

Isn't that a question that you should be asking creationists Flores? After all, don't creationists believe that God created man and then woman and these two individuals then went on to have children and populate the world? Children who ended up mating with each other if we are to believe the biblical stories told. So Flores, I guess to answer your question, if you are a creationist, you should look in the mirror and answer your own question. What do you see as the result of God's experiment after creating Adam and Eve?

Thank you very much Bells, one person who has not been corrupted by our disciplined education system.

Of course I know the creationists veiw, guess what, this is exactly where I come from. and thank you for making my point for me, the point that monkey have been asking me to make.

The first creature gene, which is Adam or call him whatever you want, although, Adam, means walking on feet in Arabic, was a perfect stable, unmutated Gene. He was probably black, with much facial and body hair, more bones, more teath, perfect order protien cells, ect...He mated with his perfect partner, and produced many children. Some of the children were solid unmutated and others were slightly mutated exactly in accordance with the statistical laws of how genes should behave. And so on and so forth, the genes got diluted, but it took a very long time, because a perfect gene order takes forever to mutate. Over time, we started loosing skin pigmentation, we started loosing other things, but their remains among us still enough variation to keep the human race going. Little does the rednecks know, but the whites are not supreme beings, on the contrary, they are less than perfect beings, the result of billion years of dilution.

 

[SwedishFish]

"And how does natural selection work exactly?"
considering there are volumes and volumes on this exact subject, i hope you don't expect to get a satisfactory answer on a message board.
i could give you a couple examples if all you want is the simple, barebones answer but i'm sure it won't satisfy you.

"Does nature favors a certain answers? Are we predestined then? Are all the answers recorded in the book of nature?"
sorry, what? i don't understand.

"Atheists must believe in... god, only that they call it nature."
actually, you finally got something right. for me anyway. except the destiny part (you're a confusing person).

"Do you think the cave man studied his partener's genes so extensively before he decided to hump her?"
we do it everytime we hump

 

[Bells]

Ermmm Flores, sorry to burst your little bubble there, but I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make .

And guess what Flores, I am one of those people 'corrupted' by the school system and what's worse, I come from a strict Christian background. But I thank everything that my parents had enough intelligence to ensure that I was educated with facts and taught things that are real, instead of things that are merely written in a book from dubious origins. I do not believe in creation Flores, but I am a firm believer in evolution. Evolution has brought up questions and those questions are actually answered. There is proof in evolution, proof that one can see and touch and study and follow through time. In evolution I have found my truth and my answers. In creation there is merely a book with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Instead in creation I see only a fear and a complete disregard for what is so clearly apparent. In creation I see a silly notion of superiority that man is better than all animals and therefore man cannot be descended from a mere animal. In creation Flores I see people who are too proud to see the true value of truth and I see people too weak to accept anything that contradicts their blind faith. So you see Flores, I am one of the corrupted minds.

The point I had tried to make in my last post Flores is that if we are to follow the creationist view, then that would mean that we would all be so severely inbred that we'd probably not even exist anymore. Hence why I asked you if you shouldn't ask creationist what would be the result of the experiment of brothers breeding with sisters, as that is what creationist believed happened in the first place.

 

[Flores]

"Atheists must believe in... god, only that they call it nature."
actually, you finally got something right. for me anyway. except the destiny part (you're a confusing person).

Then you are clearly a theist. Theists don't claim to know the qualities of god and you don't know the first thing about nature....The word nature means ESSENCE : DISPOSITION : TEMPERAMENT. I don't think that you can describe to us the nature of nature. This is exactly how I feel, I can't describe god to you, because god is the essence of everything, and how can I describe the essence of essence itself.

"Do you think the cave man studied his partener's genes so extensively before he decided to hump her?"
we do it everytime we hump

possibly, but highly unlikely. Most men go by the rule..."Everyone is the same height in bed"..and "Everyone looks the same when it's dark".

 

[Flores]

Ermmm Flores, sorry to burst your little bubble there, but I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make .

Bells say tomato
I say TomAto
Bells say potato
I say PotAto
Tomato TomAto
Potato PotAto
Let's summarize it for all
She says SHE'S A FIRM BELIVER IN EVOLUTION
I say I don't where I came from. How can I describe the essence of essence itself

She says in evolution she found the truth and answers
I say in not knowing where I came from, I'm more truthfull to myself
She says she sees fear in creation
I said I see humblness in ceation
She says she sees ignorance in creation
I said I'd rather be ignorant than a liar.

 

[Flores]

The point I had tried to make in my last post Flores is that if we are to follow the creationist view, then that would mean that we would all be so severely inbred that we'd probably not even exist anymore. Hence why I asked you if you shouldn't ask creationist what would be the result of the experiment of brothers breeding with sisters, as that is what creationist believed happened in the first place.

Your point is incomplete. You compare apples and oranges. Today genes are mutated and diluted. The first man gene was strong.

Can a totally pale person give birth to a black person? Of course not. You can't impart a quality to another person that you don't possess.

Can a black person give birth to a totally white person with blue eyes and blonde/white hair?
Yes, It's called Albino babies. A mutation in the gene and a deformation is possible.

 

[SnakeLord]

She says in evolution she found the truth and answers
I say in not knowing where I came from, I'm more truthfull to myself
She says she sees fear in creation
I said I see humblness in ceation
She says she sees ignorance in creation
I said I'd rather be ignorant than a liar.

Your grasp at innocence is charming to say the least, but you're not fooling anyone. Go back and read everything you've written in this thread. It shows a lot more than what you state above.

Can a totally pale person give birth to a black person? Of course not. You can't impart a quality to another person that you don't possess.

Actually white people do have 'freckles', or 'lentigines' and such remains of darker pigment. This helps to show us white folk have an ancestry from darker skinned individuals. I see you agree with this Flores with your statements earlier. However, is this not evolution? I know of no white people of today that just give birth to black children, with afro hair, heavier bone structure or wherever else we differ. We're all humans are we not? And yet, dependant on enivronment we're very different. Look at Oriental people: shorter, dark hair, different shaped eyes etc..

Now.. If you believe we all came from one man and one woman then it can only be said that man does evolve.

Of course most creationists feel that evolution is only apparent if and when we instantaneously grow wings, or become a completely different animal, and yet always ignore the more subtle differences that have come about. It's like, as you have seen on this thread, those who keep bringing up "missing links" and "transitional species". They do not understand the subtlety. They expect to see

A) A human being
B) A monkey
C) A half human/half monkey.

That's not how it works. A chimp does not just stand up and start shaving. However, aside from all the fossil data, we have 'leftovers' which themselves point to such origins. From tail bones to goose pimples. Goose pimples show we were most certainly at one stage extremely hairy. The presence of wisdom teeth show we must have had a vastly different diet, consisting of tough foods, and a tail bone suggests.. well, you figure that out.

Then someone finds a fossil of a creature that shares traits of both man and monkey, (btw I use the term monkey for ease of understanding). What would you call a monkey that walked upright, had a larger cranial capacity than other monkeys, and used tools? Is that still just a standard everyday monkey, or has it evolved slightly? How do you think it would turn out if you gave it a lot more time?

I think Bells has certainly made a good point about religious people being too proud to state they came from the animals they perceive themselves as being better than. I don't quite understand how any human can claim they're any better than animals in any way whatsoever. As a group we most certainly have more power, but as an individual we are way below the animals.

Can a black person give birth to a totally white person with blue eyes and blonde/white hair?
Yes, It's called Albino babies. A mutation in the gene and a deformation is possible.

Actually, there was recently a case in England where a black couple gave birth to a white child, (Not albino). The man took her to court accusing her of having an affair, (an obvious move considering). It turned out the kid was his. His great grandmother or something was white. Now in this instance you usually end up with a half-caste child, but in this case it's all worked out differently, and ended up with this white kid. There's nothing to say he wont eventually end up with black children

 

[wesmorris]

Can a totally pale person give birth to a black person? Of course not. You can't impart a quality to another person that you don't possess.

That totally depends upon with whom they mate, eh?

She says in evolution she found the truth and answers
I say in not knowing where I came from, I'm more truthfull to myself

As a member of islam, how can you say that? You've spent this entire thread arguing that you think evolution is dumb, giving a ton of evidence as you see it. Are you arguing now that you are not a creationist? Creationists as I understand it, know exactly where they came from.... god or allah.. right? If you claimed you didn't know where you came from, you're surely a liar if you claim to be islamic no? Well, it's that I have no clue how you can claim that you are an islamic creationist and simulataneously claim you don't know where you came from.

She says she sees fear in creation
I said I see humblness in ceation

But you just said you don't know where you came from, then claimed you know it's god. You don't see hypocracy there? How is that humble?

She says she sees ignorance in creation
I said I'd rather be ignorant than a liar.

Perhaps in the same sense I have no clue how you can say what you said and not be a liar, while I'm sure you'll insist you aren't.. she does the same from the opposite perspective eh? So neither of you lie but to one of you, the other is a liar by the nature of your positions. That is some funky shit.

 

[okinrus]

I don't believe that creationism or evolutionism is a religious question. By faith we know that God created us, but we don't know how God created us.

 

[wesmorris]

I don't believe that creationism or evolutionism is a religious question. By faith we know that God created us, but we don't know how God created us.

You don't see the hypocracy there eh?

You don't claim to know how we were created, but you [/i]know[/i] god created us? Why one and not the other?

It's okay to presume that god did it, but not okay to sanction a reasonable induction of the progression of species?

So as long as there's no reasonable argument to back it up, it's fine to believe what you're told, but if someone actually comes up with a reasonable argument, make sure you claim it can't be true? Is that right?