They do solve problems. Cats and rodents solve problems too. Ever have a cat figure out how to open a door? Ever have a problem with a rodent that has figured out how to open the door to its cage?

Gravity is not a fact.

Science doesn't deal in 'facts', it deals with theory and hypotheses.

Squirrels do this also. What does it prove?



http://www.birdandyard.com/products-.../var/njm-1.jpg

A preacher is FAR more likely to be wrong since preachers are usually not nearly as educated in the field of biology as biologists are. These same preachers also try to debunk plate techtonics. So now these prechers claim to know more about biology and geology then biologists and geologists COMBINED.

Edit: I nearly forgot, preachers claim to be more knowledgable then physicsts also. They try to argue against the big bang theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

chimpanzees make and use tools

:glugglug

It proves there to stupid to learn how to skin up a joint and put their time to better use :glugglug

The chimp gets the banana.

Logically life had to have an "origin" in order for evolution (micro and/or macro) to take place...thus the only two alternatives that I am aware of is either "creationism" or abiogenesis. One is just as "scientific" as the other at this point in time...as there is no "scientific" evidence for either.

And the mouse finds the cheese. Big deal.

Well there's very little in this world that is unequivocal fact. When you live your life sometimes the "best" theory has to suffice.

Why are black people (people from a tropical climate) FAR more likely to be immune to malaria (a tropical disease) then white people (people from a temperate climate)?

Even now you're only focusing on what you want to focus on. Completely ignoring everything else.

Ok, he gets the bananda. He makes "tools" with sticks and stones (we have to use that term loosely).

So what?

Because of natural selection.

Are you really this stupid?

We are not arguing abiogenesis.

Start your own thread and argue with yourself about it.

Have you ignored culture, langurage, innovation. REAL tools, PLANNING, mobility, clothing, etc etc.

LITERATURE, WRITING, READING, ANALYIS, SYNTHESIS

Have to agree with Mike, what does this have to do with evolution, maybe the chimp has always been able to do that since it was created

Mike33,

So you don't believe in microevolution or macroevolution?

How do bacteria get resistance to antiobiotics? Magic perhaps?

There you go...one can either believe in the "theory" of evolution or not...since by your own admittion it is not fact. You seem to want to insist that everyone should "believe" as you "believe" when what you believe is admittedly not fact.

It exhibits an understanding of causal relationships and that they're able to use that understanding as a means of problem solving. They're cognitive. They're thinking.

They've evolved too. I think you just got stuck on the idea that if you don't drive a car you didn't evolve. Only one species in hundreds of millions of years became capable of inventing automobiles. We shouldn't expect others to or say they haven't evolved as a result.

They were naturally selected for survivable traits, right? The rest were killed off by malaria, right? Where did this resistance come from? If everyone else was killed off, then why isn't the planet empty from all of the animals killed off by disease if there is no way to change?

What is intelligence? Is it the ability to manipulate your environment or the ability to adapt to your environment? My old biology teacher would say the dolphin is more intelligent than man because dolphins have perfectly adapted to their environment.

Sure, mankind can manipulate his environment but in the process he is destroying that environment. Is this intelligence?

maybe they always could, maybe they havnt changed, maybe the only reason they didnt stand on boxes before to get bannanas was because there wasnt some stupid human puting a box in a room near a bannana on the ceiling

Tools are tools. They are built to assist with specific tasks. My power tools are far better then what tey had in the renaissance age, but they stuff they used in the renaissance are still tools.

The word 'theory' means something different in the context of science.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...sci_theory.htm

I thought you'd gone? :winkwink:

I have already stated that there is quite alot of scientific evidence to indicate that micro-evolution has taken place...less (if any) that macro-evolution has taken place...but by your own words...it is "theory" and not fact...thus one can either "believe" in one or both or not. I also will still insist that neiter micro or macro evolution is possible without an origin of life...and to my knowledge there are only two known possibilties and that is either "abiogensis" or a "creator".

brainy talk gets me hot ;)

This resistance always existed within members of the group, that's where.

Ok, so?

If you live in an environment that has a lot of malaria then having sickle cell trait is an advantage and improves survival

It is an example of how natural selection protects a trait dependant on the environment. Natural selection is the main mechanism through which evolution works.

Why wasn't there always a human there to put boxes in a room near a banana?

If that's what your biology teacher thought, your biology teacher should stay his little world and out of the real world where the rest of us reside.

Then how can natural selection occur? As you said, they were always resistant.

:Graucho

So you don't believe in mutation?

I'll answer the 99% gene similarity question since noone else did; there are an enormous amount of genes, and most if not all earthly animals have a goodly share of perfectly identical genes as well, genes for basics that never needed to change. Therefore small flunctuations can result in huge change.

You're basically arguing that nothing is fact therefore you can believe whatever you want and all beliefs are equal.

I don't believe that. I believe that evidence and methodology make some things much more likely than others.

You can also believe that Santa Claus brings you presents at Christmas time if you want to. No one can stop you. Go ahead. There's a reason why you don't, of course. It's true that if you want to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or that there are dragons living in caves no one can prove you wrong.

You don't have to believe what I believe but if your argument come down to "I can believe whatever I want no matter how kooky" it pretty much kills the entire possibility of a real debate.

I hope you're a woman. :uhoh

Look, it's a stretch to say that a tree branch is a tool as we know it. Even when man was supposedly in caves, he created tools. He didn't just use branches, he carved out the ends into sharp spears, he sharpened the rocks and so on.

But anyway, we're getting off topic. We're 99% similar in DNA yet the chimp is clearly far inferior. We didn't evolve from the chimp. This was the chimp from the beginning of chimps. We were always man.
That's just my belief. There is litle or no evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps. After all, I took his class over 30 years ago.

I have a theory that in the center of the earth resides an alien race. Prove me wrong or believe it.

Show me some evidence.

So do I!

Even teachers teaching for 60 years can get it wrong.

Haven't you ever met somebody at a job who said something like, "What are you talking about? I've been working here for 30 years, I know what I'm talking about and you don't" when you actually know the idiot is dead wrong?

Happens all the time.

Mike brought it up. He asked why if our DNA is so similar why we are different. The question was answered. No one has said that is evidence for evolution.

You don't prove scientific theories, you attempt to falsify them.

You don't prove stocktrader23 theories either. :Graucho

You didn't answer the question. You showed some poor examples of how we are "similar".

You're arguing that complexity makes a tool a tool, rather then the fact that it takes abstract thought to use something outside of yourself to do something.

Eventually he did that, but what did he do before he honed his tools?

It only takes 1% of DNA code to make that difference. Do you have any idea how large our DNA code is? 1% is a LOT of information.