Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 13263994)

Actually we are pigs. Our genes are more common to pigs than apes. So, before we talk about the ancestor of apes, we have to talk about the ancestor of pigs.

Originally Posted by sortie (Post 13263966)

Ok, then why don't you explain:

Cross species evolution

The process by which a new species emerged from another.

Keeping in mind the following scientific facts:

- A species is one group that can breed within itself and produce fertile offspring. (You know, the reason why you can't breed two mules to get another and you have to breed a horse with a donkey to get another mule.)

- DNA does not undergo metamorphosis during the life of the being so it must be born as the new species.(if you can prove this to not be true then I will certainly admit that evolution is probably true as expressed by the "darwinist")


That's enough for now. I have more if you can come up with any science to refute that.

Originally Posted by sortie (Post 13263192)

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.

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264167)

It blows my mind about how much information is free and available out there, that no one bothers to know. Read more and realize how little you actually know.

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 13263994)

Actually we are pigs. Our genes are more common to pigs than apes. So, before we talk about the ancestor of apes, we have to talk about the ancestor of pigs.

Originally Posted by sortie (Post 13264217)

You can't even read the shit I just wrote as you stupidly began to repeat the definition of a species as cleary defined by me already. You were arguing my exact point. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You went around you ass to reach your elbow to say exaclty what I said.
That stuff I put there about the mule was for idiots like you who couldn't grasp the concept without an example.

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264157)

Not true, radiation can change the make-up of a DNA. It normally makes you sterile though, but it can also fuck up your DNA.

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264157)

It's assumed as well that some fuck-ups can be a good thing and make something beneficial to an offspring.

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264157)

Look at the evolution of dogs by example. They can all still interbred and are therefore still dogs = canines, but over time and with enough change (isolation) the difference could become so significant that the offspring become sterile and the variations in the dogs become permanent and the mixing of genes no longer occurs because the offspring can't reproduce. Now you have two different species.

Originally Posted by Zuss (Post 13263251)

Everyone knows we are alien-ape hybrids..stupid.

Originally Posted by After Shock Media (Post 13264197)

:error

Aside from that Cro-Magnons man came after Neanderthal, both in each of their own times were on this planet way longer than we (today's humans) ever were. Neanderthal had reign over this planet for some 200,000 plus years alone. They barely got down fire, basic tools, and minimal culture in that time. Cro ended up with more culture (art/decorations) and a little more advanced tools yet again free reign for unfathomable years compared to our own race today.

So no if given 200,000 years they would still of ended up where they were. They had that and then some.

As for the rest of your or well some others arguments who would rather say god created it all (creationism) I am not about to even delve into as they are not only absurd, yet nearly always disproved or dismissed by real science. Unless and a big unless it falls into one of the missing link categories. Since not every single gawd damn step happened to get fossilized unfortunately.

Originally Posted by fatfoo (Post 13264110)

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn (Post 13264257)

Sortie, sorry man, I don't know if this is all just some sort of dry joke or goof that you are posting on the forum, or if you really believe what you are typing but what you are saying is ludicrous. There is not one single thing you said nor one conclusion that you made about evolution that has any basis in logic or science.

When I read the conspiracy theories and so-called scientific discussion here on GFY I often wonder if I am just missing the inside joke and it's all nonsense from a board "character", or if some people really are that uneducated and ignorant.

Originally Posted by sortie (Post 13264296)

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.

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264269)

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.

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264269)

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).

Originally Posted by sortie (Post 13264350)

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.

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264260)

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"

Originally Posted by Will Black (Post 13264130)

WE ARE APES...its a fact. We aren't pigs.

Originally Posted by Papillon (Post 13264370)

Hey you ignorant fool. Fossils aren't formed in lava slides, mudslides or ice overs


sux to know nothing heh :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 13264427)

No, you cannot say that. Don't let your eyes fool you! Apes have developed in a way like humans, the way they look and the way they behave. But they have not developed that fast and far as humans, even they have been here longer than humans. Our genetic codes are closer to pigs than apes, and that means pigs and humans have an common ancestor. That ancestor has another common ancestor with the apes. We do not know where the lines meet, but thats the way it works.
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 :)

Originally Posted by rvincent (Post 13263244)

And nobody from the Nobel comitee to give you some award... What a shame....

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 13263761)

We didn't come from Neanderthals, we came from Cro-Magnoms. I fail to see how the size of their brain would have anything to do with us. Neanderthals went extinct.

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn (Post 13264257)

When I read the conspiracy theories and so-called scientific discussion here on GFY I often wonder if I am just missing the inside joke and it's all nonsense from a board "character", or if some people really are that uneducated and ignorant.

Originally Posted by D (Post 13263378)

I don't think anyone (but the ignorant) are saying we evolved from apes... evolutionary theory claims that we share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we're a more evolved form of any extant species.

If you look at the genetic record, you begin to notice patterns... patterns that suggest all life on this planet shares a common ancestor... you can track the progress of evolutionary development... single cell organisms, then single cell organisms working together (a modern-day example of this is the found in any plant as chloroplasts have different genetic sequences than the material in each cells nucleus), and multicellular life was born. Cells begin to specialize, and reproduce with the whole organism... nervous systems get more complex... notochords come into existence, and vertebrates slowly make their way out of the water. I could probably make this one paragraph about 50 pages long, but I won't do that to you. Maybe if you're ever in L.A. and want to buy me a beer... :winkwink:

Instead, I'll just say that I'm not sure what "real science" you're referring to as backing up your fantasy of spontaneous generation... as someone who pays attention to such things, you sound like someone who doesn't have a grasp of the actual science involved.

There's tons of evidence - genetic, and that of the fossil record, that supports the theory of macroevolution. Don't forget that we've been here a very very very long time. Longer than some minds can grasp.

I also don't think that the actual science would claim that we're the most evolved species on the planet... in fact, peer-reviewed papers in Journals such as Nature refute that idea all the time. Hell, just a couple of months ago, the idea that chimps are more evolved that humans was discussed in this very forum, and supported by the idea that they have an extra pair of chromosomes, which allow them greater opportunity at mutation.

The fossil record seems to support the idea of evolution. I don't think you have any real idea of the science involved with evolutionary biology, as you're making a lot of statements that any first-year Premed student could point out as blatantly false:

The scientific idea that "we came from monkeys" (no scientist thinks that - it's a creationists' slant), we're the most evolved species in the planet (no one's saying that, either... just maybe we're the most fortunate), "We would never accept that previous humans were as smart as" (a blantant false statement - in fact, we feel that they were very intelligent, and recent (as in like 2 weeks ago 'recent') evidence shows that they had spoken language)... and then there's the "theory vs. fact" statement you made.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but RE: "theory vs. fact": any scientist knows that _everything_ is a theory. That's how science has worked since the dawn of man. What's considered "truth" is found in philosophy, and, in that regard, we're still busy trying to figure out if we're even capable of perceiving "reality" at all. Everything we perceive is a "theory"... we move forward through a process of falsification... we examine the facts, and come up with a theory that accounts for all the facts, and is able to make predictions. Then we keep that theory as the generally accepted theory until observations undeniably contradict the predictions of the theory, or another theory comes along that makes all the predictions the old theory did, but is also able to make predictions that the first theory wasn't able to.

That is science. That is how we learn. We're a species that observes patterns.

You seem like a thinker, man... but you also seem to have a lot of misconceptions driving your thoughts. Try and correct for those. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by D (Post 13263378)

I don't think anyone (but the ignorant) are saying we evolved from apes... evolutionary theory claims that we share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we're a more evolved form of any extant species.

If you look at the genetic record, you begin to notice patterns... patterns that suggest all life on this planet shares a common ancestor... you can track the progress of evolutionary development... single cell organisms, then single cell organisms working together (a modern-day example of this is the found in any plant as chloroplasts have different genetic sequences than the material in each cells nucleus), and multicellular life was born. Cells begin to specialize, and reproduce with the whole organism... nervous systems get more complex... notochords come into existence, and vertebrates slowly make their way out of the water. I could probably make this one paragraph about 50 pages long, but I won't do that to you. Maybe if you're ever in L.A. and want to buy me a beer... :winkwink:

Instead, I'll just say that I'm not sure what "real science" you're referring to as backing up your fantasy of spontaneous generation... as someone who pays attention to such things, you sound like someone who doesn't have a grasp of the actual science involved.

There's tons of evidence - genetic, and that of the fossil record, that supports the theory of macroevolution. Don't forget that we've been here a very very very long time. Longer than some minds can grasp.

I also don't think that the actual science would claim that we're the most evolved species on the planet... in fact, peer-reviewed papers in Journals such as Nature refute that idea all the time. Hell, just a couple of months ago, the idea that chimps are more evolved that humans was discussed in this very forum, and supported by the idea that they have an extra pair of chromosomes, which allow them greater opportunity at mutation.

The fossil record seems to support the idea of evolution. I don't think you have any real idea of the science involved with evolutionary biology, as you're making a lot of statements that any first-year Premed student could point out as blatantly false:

The scientific idea that "we came from monkeys" (no scientist thinks that - it's a creationists' slant), we're the most evolved species in the planet (no one's saying that, either... just maybe we're the most fortunate), "We would never accept that previous humans were as smart as" (a blantant false statement - in fact, we feel that they were very intelligent, and recent (as in like 2 weeks ago 'recent') evidence shows that they had spoken language)... and then there's the "theory vs. fact" statement you made.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but RE: "theory vs. fact": any scientist knows that _everything_ is a theory. That's how science has worked since the dawn of man. What's considered "truth" is found in philosophy, and, in that regard, we're still busy trying to figure out if we're even capable of perceiving "reality" at all. Everything we perceive is a "theory"... we move forward through a process of falsification... we examine the facts, and come up with a theory that accounts for all the facts, and is able to make predictions. Then we keep that theory as the generally accepted theory until observations undeniably contradict the predictions of the theory, or another theory comes along that makes all the predictions the old theory did, but is also able to make predictions that the first theory wasn't able to.

That is science. That is how we learn. We're a species that observes patterns.

You seem like a thinker, man... but you also seem to have a lot of misconceptions driving your thoughts. Try and correct for those. :2 cents: