What religion are you?

[Woody]

Goat Guy said:

Whales are the most closely related to hippos. There in between sizes of whale even within the whales that live today, some are huge, some are dophin sized. Why do some whales still have vestigal pelvic and hind leg bones deep within their bodies?

I was taught that whales evolved from a land mammal about the size of an otter. How many times has the theory been changed since then?

Goat Guy said about a good mutation:

Adult human lactose tolerance, which evolved after human domestication of cattle.

Are more babies surviving as a result of this "good mutation" and passing the genes to their offspring, or do they end up taking a proton pump inhibitor (anti-acid) like me?


Goat Guy:

Tell me, woody, what would a hypothetical transitional creature between humans and apes look like?

I don't know but I do know this: there should be an immediate predecessor to modern man that can be evaluated with DNA testing to verify the genetic facts. Neanderthal "man", the most recent known hominid, contemporaary with modern man, failed the DNA test and contributed NOTHING to the human microchondrial gene pool.

Goat Guy said:

No, Java man is not a hoax.

Have you read about Dubois? You don't think he had self-serving motives when he mixed in bones from other finds? Fame and fortune will turn many a man into a liar.

Goat Guy said:

Again, if this isn't an example of a transitional species, what is?

There is an opinion in the science community that Java man is an extinct giant gibbon, like the giant sloth is an extinct sloth. It doesn't mean one came from the other.

 

[spidergoat]

...as often as it needs to be, you see, unlike religion, scientists believe in having a critical view of their own work.

Anyway, that whales and hippos are closely related doesn't mean that whales descended from modern hippos, just that they both had a relatively recent ancestor that may well have been the size of an otter. But, hippos are closer to whales than they are to, say, horses.

Research based on DNA is just now coming into it's heyday with the help of fast, cheap computers.

 

[spidergoat]

Goat Guy said about a good mutation:

“ Adult human lactose tolerance, which evolved after human domestication of cattle. ”


Are more babies surviving as a result of this "good mutation" and passing the genes to their offspring, or do they end up taking a proton pump inhibitor (anti-acid) like me?

Mammals ingest lactose only during nursing... and activity of lactase enzymes drops off sharply after weaning -- production of enzyme shuts off -- why produce an enzyme you don't need?

Yet some human adults maintain lactase activity into adulthood -- descended from populations in regions of the world where dairying has had a long history = culture-history argument first proposed by Simoons. (Danes, Finns, Hungarians, Mongols, northern Indian groups, and Tutsi & Fulani pastoralists).

This is a good example of a physiological trait being culturally selected -- it appears to be inherited as an autosomal dominant genetic trait -- and shows that such traits can become widespread in a relatively short period of time (dairying less than 10,000 years old). Lactose tolerance is often cited as an example of "evolution in action" and the coevolution of human biology and culture (e.g. a biological adaptation evolving in a "cultural" environment.)

(from here)
---------------

I don't know but I do know this: there should be an immediate predecessor to modern man that can be evaluated with DNA testing to verify the genetic facts. Neanderthal "man", the most recent known hominid, contemporaary with modern man, failed the DNA test and contributed NOTHING to the human microchondrial gene pool.

Neanderthal man, as well as many other human species were not necessarily our ancestor, they could be, as you explain, our cousins, living concurrently, descended from the common ancestor of Chimps, Bonobos, and Humans.

The reason you can find DNA in a neanderthal is because they lived relatively recently. In older bones, and fossils, DNA breaks down. But, we don't have to rely on the DNA of a "missing link", because we can compare our DNA to that of bonobos (pygmy chimps) and find astounding similarities, closer than to any other living thing.

Have you read about Dubois? You don't think he had self-serving motives when he mixed in bones from other finds? Fame and fortune will turn many a man into a liar.

I'm familiar with the story. He did have an interest in proving his particular version of evolutionary theory, but he didn't fake anything. He also wanted to place Java man with the gibbons as reinforcement of his theory, but he NEVER believed it was merely a gaint gibbon. The skullcap itself has now been compared with more recent finds, with more complete skeletons, and they are almost identical- an upright large-brained humanoid. Scientists are only human, subject to human greed and lust for fame, but modern consensus is that he really did find a remarkable bone.

There is an opinion in the science community that Java man is an extinct giant gibbon, like the giant sloth is an extinct sloth. It doesn't mean one came from the other.

Get with it, guy, even creationists don't believe that anymore, catch up.

Gibbons, apes, humans, these are all labels- boxes that we artificially place around certain groups of animals that are in reality undergoing different rates of change all the time.

check this out:
Ancient Hominid Found in Ethiopia Is Yielding Teeth Like the Apes'

 

[Prester John]

Prester my man,

So you don't believe longevity, virility, and physical fitness figure at all in the evolutionary equation. I gave you all the benefit of the doubt, and you don't see an advantage from an evolutionary point of view.

No see what you have done is created a strawman and then burnt him. This is a logical fallacy, ie your point is not made. What i am saying is that i did not say what you said i said

Survival of the fittest: Who has a better chance of survival -- someone in their prime or some old guy like me. Why do you think the military prefers 18 to 20 year olds?

Yes, your point is?

As far as the biblical part of it goes: Methuselah lived 969 years and several others lived many hundreds of years. God knew how to get the earth populated fast -- make people live longer.

So you take everything in the bible literally. Perhaps you can tell me what god made first, man or animals? Regardless of what god did, from what we can see of the world today, it is not practical nor likely that an animal like a human will develop a lifespan of 2000 yrs. As spider pointed out there are problems that need to be overcome. The chance of those problems being overcome in an evolutionary way is minscule.

Gee whizz it seems like everything I was taught about the "evidence" keeps on turning out to be fiction. Real science doesn't change. Junk science is whatever you want it to be, and I don't see why this crap is taught in school.

emphasis mine

See the bolded bit is right. Real science changes as well though, but neccessarily into what you want it to be. Have you read the talk origins pages yet? Perhaps you could point out some real errors and discuss them, a nobel prize awaits surely, instead of merely asserting errors in evolutionary theory.