Evolution is complete BULLSHIT!!!! - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Will Black · 10-20-2007, 08:31 PM

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"

Will Black · 10-20-2007, 08:39 PM

"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.

fatfoo · 10-20-2007, 08:41 PM

damn this girl is cute:

Bird · 10-20-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuss

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

Our moms name is Ruth

sortie · 10-20-2007, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

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.

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.

Drake · 10-20-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatfoo

sortie · 10-20-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

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.

Sorry man, but history had always labled those who proposed new ideas as fools. Darwin was proclaimed a fool by the majority of people in the world when he introduced his theory of evolution. People fall in love with ideas and cling to them and fight against those that refute those ideas.

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.

After Shock Media · 10-20-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

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.

Oh nevermind, go back to making some tube clones.

sortie · 10-20-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Black

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.

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Will Black

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).

You missed the boat on that one. My point was that neaderthals didn't live until today so their creativity had less time than all human time combined.
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.

Papillon · 10-20-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

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.

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

sux to know nothing heh

sortie · 10-20-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Black

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"

I'm glad you put the stuff in there about elephants. I did some reading on wiki and elephants are quite amazing. Now enough of thank you for something. Back to bashing you like a bug.

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.

Dirty Dane · 10-20-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Black

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

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

sortie · 10-20-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papillon

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

sux to know nothing heh

It must "sux" to be you then :

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/EarthSC20...s/EVOLSLID.HTM

http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org/c...stract/79/1/14

Idiot.

What a fucking clown.

sortie · 10-20-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

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

You are attacking his religion. He worships the monkey god.

TTiger · 10-20-2007, 11:08 PM

IF...?

TTiger · 10-20-2007, 11:10 PM

then maybe...

woj · 10-21-2007, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvincent

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

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2007, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

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.

Why am I not surprised you'd conveniently skip over this post sortie?

borked · 10-21-2007, 02:08 AM

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 ;)

cykoe6 · 10-21-2007, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

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.

It gets pretty scary around here sometimes.

Will Black · 10-21-2007, 08:26 AM

[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?

Angie77 · 10-21-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

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...

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.

I'm glad someone made this post because I was expecting I might have to ! :D

Will Black · 10-21-2007, 08:41 AM

Double quoted for truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

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...

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.

10-20-2007, 08:41 PM	#53
fatfoo ICQ:649699063 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 27,763	damn this girl is cute: __________________ Send me an email: [email protected]

10-20-2007, 11:08 PM	#65
TTiger Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: quebec, canada Posts: 3,030	IF...? __________________

10-20-2007, 11:10 PM	#66
TTiger Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: quebec, canada Posts: 3,030	then maybe... __________________

10-21-2007, 02:08 AM	#69
borked Totally Borked Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,284	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 ;) __________________ For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com (consider figuring out the email as test #1) All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202

10-20-2007, 08:31 PM	#51
Will Black Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: USA Posts: 261	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"

10-20-2007, 08:39 PM	#52
Will Black Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: USA Posts: 261	"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.

10-21-2007, 08:26 AM	#71
Will Black Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: USA Posts: 261	[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?