Well, at least the "monkey to man" part is bullshit.
I took this quote from another thread because that thread was nasty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenko
but the idea of intelligence not being partly inherited would go against evolution itself.
|
Too bad that evolution will eventually turn out to be the "fad" science of the times.
I no longer accept the silly notion that humans evolved from apes.
The real science will ultimately show that life on earth was formed in a pool of genetic material where nucleic acid formed DNA fragments that randomly joined with other fragments to form "sets" of more complicated material that could no longer pick up new fragments unless it matched with something that was equally complex. This would be the separation of species at this stage as the complex fragments could no longer conjoin with dissimilar fragments. This finally became the DNA sequences that formed life as we know it.
The final DNA sequence for humans was formed and completed in that pool
and it never evolved from that point on.
This still leaves room for the human to "grow" in stages of form. However, each growth stage would still have the full human DNA and primates don't have that, so even if humans evolved in form, the primate is still excluded.
The "missing link" is missing because it never existed.
The reason that primates are similar to humans is because they were in the same pool but had a slightly different random gathering of genetic material.
It is noteworthy that the single cell organism known as the Amoeba has 200 times the complexity in it's genetic structure than humans. Yet no one would claim that it "out evolved us". This would tend to refute any assumption that the complexity of ones genetic structure could determine superiority.
Being able to run on two feet while carrying a weapon to bash other life forms in the head would determine that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wiki
One of the largest known genomes belongs to the single-celled amoeba
|
Humans want to believe in evolution because that provides the reasoning for us to claim that we are the highest life form to ever exist. We would never accept that previous humans were as smart as us but had less time to develop the tools the we claim prove our supremacy. If Neanderthal man had a life expectancy of 200,000 years then he too would have eventually created a computer. But almost no one will accept that because it is damaging to our ego.
It is noteworthy that the Neanderthal had a
larger brain than "modern humans". Yet evolution claims that the brain should have evolved to become larger in modern humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
(notice how the author of the wiki has a hard time accepting that as he exclaims that the data was not "adjusted" for the large frame. Since when did bigger people get known for having bigger brains?
)
That ego of supremacy is hard to shed.
The earth is round! The earth is round! The earth is round!
But no one heard me until someone else who is worshiped by all agreed that it was true.
If you believe that bullshit ape story about humans then your earth is still flat.
Darwin proclaimed it to be a theory, he never claimed it to be a fact.