Evolution doesn't say we evolved from chimps or apes. Didn't you read the whole thread?

The wood hadnt evolved into a box yet, maybe as time goes on and we evolve, instead of trees growing, boxes will grow, then the monkeys can climb on the boxes to get the bannanas without humans help.

I'm not asking you to prove it, I'm asking for some evidence.

That's the logical fallacy of "proving a negative" and that's not how evolutions works. What you just did is exactly what christians do with god. Try again bucksnort. :glugglug

My mother in law is a nurse. She bases her entire life and thinking around what she read in medical books while she was in school over 30 years ago even though much of it is completely wrong. :winkwink:

What? Your question doesn't make sense

Then you define intelligence. And keep in mind humans would not be as advanced as they are were it not for opposable thumbs and protein from meat.

I wasn't trying to prove anything, it was a joke.

Try again Tony Robbins.

It's also what evolutionists do. They have a theory based on a premise and now they try to find things to support it. There has been quite a lack of evidence thus far.

As do I...and probably as...any other reasonable/logical thinking person does...but when the book is still open on any subject...I tend not to become "religious" in my belief and insistent that my "belief" is the only acceptable alternative...as people like Joe Sixpack seem to do.

Mike33,

So you don't believe in mutation? I ask because you seem to think that a populations DNA is static (e.g. there was always resistance).

Why do you call a chimp inferior? Is a rat inferior? Is a cockroach? How about a virus? Humanity does not stand at the apex of evolution.

You're correct. Humans did NOT evolve from chimps. Chimps and humans have a common ancestor. DNA similarity IS evidence of exactly that. DNA changes with time through mutation. If you extrapolate the amount of expected variation with time you would estimate that humans and chimps have an ancestor between 5 and 7 million years ago. That 5-7 million years ago your DNA and bobo's DNA were the same.

That guy at the job is usually wrong because he hasn't bothered to learn anything about his job since he got it. In most jobs, there are changes that you are expected to stay abreast of. The teacher might be one of those, but that doesn't prove anything either way.

Good scientists try to find evidence to disprove it. Since you don't believe it, it would seem reasonable to present some arguments that appear to you to disprove it.

Stocktrader23 needs to prove his theory, then we will attempt to falsify his proof.

I was just giving an example of how your teacher was a nutjob.

Intelligence certainly encompasses more than an animal that appears to live in complete harmony with it's environment, not from it's own volition, but by necessity. The dolphin does not choose to be harmonious with the world. He is that way and was that way from birth by being a dolphin and he can do nothing else.

And what hospital does she work at?

I am from the future and I've seen it myself.

It doesn't matter, they are nearly all the same.

I read somewhere that the dolphin was once a land creature that chose to return to the sea. But of course, some wacky evolutionist probably made it up.

If you lived in SE Kansas, you wouldn't have much faith in evolution either :(

My question makes perfect sense, you just don't know how to answer it. How can natural selection occur of black people were always resistant to malaria? If all species of organisms have always had all the resistances they have, then there can be no natural selection.

The book is not 'open' on creationism.

It is pseudo-science.

I've tried time and time again the tenuous links you guys are using to support the theory of evolution.

I've shown you that natural selection does not mean evolution. I've shown you that our differences and/or similarities to apes does not mean we are at all linked. I've shown you that genes are not gauranteed to be passed down even when they're beneficial. I've shown that we have been unable to demonstrate it in the lab. And even if we assume it has on a cell by cell basis, does that still hold up that we were monkeys? No


Yet these are some of the things that are used to suppor the theory.

Bullshit! AGAIN, you show that you know squat about squat. No reputable scientist would do this and get away with it for longer then about a minute.

If you think biologists ask everyone else to prove negatives, then show me one example of just that. Since you think they do and do not believe in evolution, then it should not take you long. Good luck!

Guess what evolutionists say about giraffes.... their necks are long so that they can eat the berries at the tops of the trees. See how absurd this is? Why not make longer legs then? Why not let it be able to climb?

There are other alternatives but this is most convenient so it becomes the "official" explanation.

There are many thousands of papers and books on the subject detailing the fossil and molecular evidence.

Read some!

Biology didn't stop in 1859!

I say the book is open on "creationism" as at this point in time I am only aware of two possible origins of life and that is either by abiogenesis (which there is not any proof of abiogenesis having taken place) or by a "creator". If you can provide other alternitives please do so?

Mike, honestly, you haven't shown us anything other than that your understanding of the theory of evolution is flawed, and very limited.

Not so absurd. The giraffe is able to eat a food other animals cannot. A food they evidently need to survive.

The fact that we have something in common called DNA to mean that we are related is an assumption.
I'm sure all living things have something in common.

Same with koalas.

1. Genes don't have to pass down EVERY time they're beneficial. You're thinking one example again. Evolution suggests that in general over a population, beneficial genes are MORE likely to be passed down.

2. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is shown to occur in the lab.

3. I don't understand how you've shown that our similarity to apes doesn't mean we're linked. It suggests we have a common ancestor sometime in history.


Also you said a population always had resistance to say sickle trait, or a bacteria to antibiotics. Are you saying that mutation does not occur? or simply that mutation is not powerful enough to effect a change in an individual?

So before they "evolved" longer necks they couldn't reach this food and died? Nothing left to evolve from eh?

Sounds like a wacky idea to me. It doesn't to you?

It goes FAR deeper then that. It goes so deep that I can't even begin to explain it. Go talk to a biologist, take a couple of classes, READ the scientific literature.

no wackier than any other

CET, this whole evolution thing started with Darwin. He had a premise that things evolved over time. That's the premise that runs through to today. It's the premise upon which all evolutionary inquiry rests.

Like religion?

Actually he has shown me something. I thought that the reason that 50% of americans dont believe in evolution was becuase they were all church going nutters, but hes shown me that others dont believe becuase the science behind it they believe is flawed. Thats a refreshing attitude and whether I agree with him or not, Im glad that there are free thinking people like him over there still :thumbsup

When I say 'creationism' I refer to what is known as 'scientific' creationism, not the idea that there is a creator.

I've noticed that Mike has completely avoided my question about natural selection and mutation. He can't tell me how natural selection occurs without mutations. Maybe if I keep bringing it up he'll be forced to answer it one way or another.

Uh that's a long discredited theory of evolution. No modern day evolutionist believes that.

Not exactly... very few examples of battle armor survived, for obvious reasons. But from the few that do, it is clear that these were big guys. Pretty much what you would expect when you figure out the strength it takes to wield a sword that is 4-6 feet long.

The armor you see on tombs, in castles, etc., was for display only and because it was expensive, made smaller than life.

The growth thing is not anyway part of evolution as such, because evolution implies change. But FYI I recall reading in Israel a few years ago their stats showed that simply because of improvements in nutrition, successive generations there since WW2 were averaging 1-2 inches taller than their parents.

It actually started with Lamarck... but he had things a little confused.

yes I think this is the third time I've mentioned mutation also :/

I love the interweb :)

http://www.cetacea.org/evolve.htm

The Cetacean's Adaptations for Sea Life
Over a period of millions of years, the cetacean returned to the sea - there was more food there, and more space than on land. Because of this increase in space, there was no natural limit to the cetacean's size (i.e. the amount of weight its legs could hold) since the water provided buoyancy. It had no longer any need for legs.

During this time, the cetacean lost the qualities that fitted it for land existence and gained new qualities for life at sea. Its hind limbs disappeared, its body became more tapered and streamlined - a form that enabled it to move swiftly through the water. For the same reason, most of its fur disappeared, reducing the resistance of the giant body to the water. The cetacean's original tail was replaced by a pair of flukes that acted like a propeller.

Those that just happened to have longer necks were able to eat more then those with shorter necks. Thus those with shorter necks died and those with longer necks had more children. The children with the longest necks could reach the most food, thus giving thier children the trait of having longer necks. Etc.

Yes, Lamarckism.

CET, this isn't rocket science. Whenever you don't have the answer referring somebody to go to see a biologist just doesn't cut it.

If you understood what you're talking about you'd be able to paraphrase. The general idea is what we're looking for. We've challenged it and showed where there are assumptions. All you need to do is show why they're aren't assumptions but that they're true. You can't.