|
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.
Evolution makes no claim to complexity. Evolution can make things simpler over time and it has. I already talked about viruses and bacteria, there genome sometimes getting smaller, let alone their size. Brain SIZE has little to do with intelligence. Whales have big brains too and they are pretty stupid by comparison to humans. It is all how the mind is ORGANIZED that influences how it functions. Horses have bigger brains too, elephants, etc. Evolution can favour smaller brains too...."too smart for your own good" |
"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." That's nuts, so every single species was present at the exact same time at the beginning of time? That's crazy since 99% of all animals species are now extinct and new ones come up throughout the fossil record at different times and in different quantities. "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." THat is just plain weak. You think life expectancy is all that innovation feeds on? If Neanderthals were so smart, then they would have been able to increase their life expectancy like we did (or instead of us). "If you believe that bullshit ape story about humans then your earth is still flat." Terribly weak. We see that the earth is not flat. "Darwin proclaimed it to be a theory, he never claimed it to be a fact." Finally you say something that is true. It will never be fact, but when there is so much evidence for a hypothesis, it graduates to a theory, but since no one can go back in time, no one can prove it fact. If you ignore all the data, then fine, go for it, but you have to turn a blind eye to a lot of information to do this. |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your argument does not recognize that the bulk of major technological advances were discovered by a very small number of people. One million humans didn't wake up on day and discover electricity, one single person did. This is important because the world would not have changed at that time without that one person and to claim that human intelligence was increased because there was one genius among us is flawed. Humans can now build tv sets, but you can't build one!! We have 4 billion brains in the human talent pool today while neanderthal may have had as little as 50,000(Swag figure here). Of course we invent more shit! Further, earlier humans didn't have all day to sit around dreaming up shit that led to revolutionary discoveries, they had to forage for food and work all day. Like I said, it's your human ego that requires you to belive you are smarter than neanderthal. Neanderthal would have laughed at the stupidity of the tv show Survivor as the modern human contestants would all die in about a week if the shit was real, yet neanderthal survived far worse conditions because of his brain. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is why humans haven't evolved, we are just as jealous, angry and thick headed as the very first man to appear on earth. We still burn witches except we use electronic flames on message boards. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The actual being may still have not developed because it needed a different enviorment or nutrient to exploit it's full growth triats. Further people should stop thinking that when some animal fucked up and got caught in a rock as a fossil that marks the first time it appear on earth. Plenty of beings existed that and have gone exstinct but they never were capture in a lava slide, mud slide, ice over...etc to make a fossil remain. Quote:
We built upon his creativity. We didn't start from scratch like he did. 200 years from now people will not be smarted than Einstien just because they can read his book and then add to it or find a flaw. Now go back and prove my other question. Until you breed one species until it becomes another species that can produce fertil offspring then you have not prove cross species evolution and without that Darwins theory falls down. |
Quote:
sux to know nothing heh :1orglaugh |
Quote:
I'm right and it's just that you can't let go of the information that has been drilled into us all these years and why it is important for schools to stop teaching evolution from the stand point that it is a totaly proven fact. There is equal evidence that the current theory is not fact. I think evolution is a real thing just not in the way it is being handed to us. It is more limited for one thing. Religion says Adam and Eve were humans and Evolutionsit say they were microbes. Other than that they are both engulfed in fanatism about things that have not been proved. |
Quote:
You can ask any expert on this. Try asking a cardiologist or other doctor and they will tell you that a pig is closest to human. In fact, thats why they can use transplantation from pigs, because our body do not reject it, because our genes are so close. That wouldn't work with parts from a monkey. I'm sorry to disappoint you :) |
Quote:
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/EarthSC20...s/EVOLSLID.HTM http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org/c...stract/79/1/14 Idiot. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh What a fucking clown. |
Quote:
|
|
then maybe...
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/theoryandpr...lith-thumb.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
This thread is too funny!
I could live for 1000 years and I wouldn't "evolve". I may become resistant to the odd disease, so I have gained a beneficial trait. But it's only when I procreate that the real advantages become apparent. If I had lived in that same town as my father, my grandfather and my great great great great... grandfather before me, and I procreated with a girl in my town who's descendancy also came from the same town, then meiotic recombination in the germline, where my chromosomes mix with hers will create an offspring with pretty much identically genetic makeup. However, if my family had moved around the world, my great great grandfather lived in Africa, my great grandfather lived in Spain, my grandfather lived in China and my father lived in New Zealand, and I procreated with a girl whose family was equally diverse in nationality, then our offspring would have a combination of the genetic pool from around the world, and that kid would have amazing genetic diversity. And would have a great chance of having some amazing advantages over the highly inbred kid. Isn't this why America is so great? An evolutionary biologist, or population geneticist would say so, because America doesn't have any single genetic pool, as it the American genetic pool has been created from a world population. Or maybe that's what devolution is all about ;) |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=sortie;13264350]Get off the garden of eden thinking. There could have been millions of these genitic pools created at different times and I said the DNA was created.
The actual being may still have not developed because it needed a different enviorment or nutrient to exploit it's full growth triats. So you think it's more plausible to have multiple primordial ooze/spontaneous life generations then just one which diverged and evolved over time? That's the most improbable theory of all. FYI scientists have been trying this primordial method of creating new life with basic life building blocks shocked with lightening/electricity over long periods of time (nothing yet). The fact is improbable enough that spontaneous generation of life is hard enough to create once, let alone multiple times. Why you reject small steps in terms of modifications of animals over time is why you need to read some books like "climbing mount improbable - richard dawkins" and "the blind watchmaker - also by dawkins" When you get through with those get back to me and we can discuss how it's more probable then multiple life generating from nothing, in multiple instances to form perfectly functioning animals all at one time. Odds are by your definition that something that generated life on the first try would be eaten by an animal that was already more established in it's environment and has some inherent traits suited to where it resides. The chances that you have come up with a new theory is zero, when so many people have tried this theory over and over again and actually make their living from doing so. I don't really know why you bother, or are you warming up for your new paper on this new theory? |
Quote:
|
Double quoted for truth.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123