Sorry, but that's so wrong I don't even know where to start...deeznutz1245 wrote:
One quick thing though, the person who wrote the article is an idiot. Anthropology 101 : you cannot have evolved from something that still exists!!!! It says in the first paragraph how humans evolved from apes.Impossible, how are there still apes then? I understand the point they are trying to make, that way, way back our DNA was once one, and then they split which is why they are so similar. But dont accuse an organazation of covering up something that is genetically impossible to begin with.
no he is right aparently we didnt evolve from modern day apes we evolved from an ape but not an ape that is alive today, because they evolved as well just in different ways.
To me he seems to be saying that because we evolved from some creature, that creature can not possibly exist today, which is just wrong.
QFEScorpion0x17 wrote:
Sorry, but that's so wrong I don't even know where to start...
What you seem to be talking about are single mutations in individuals that result in an enormous and sudden change in phenotype which often result in inviable offspring. Evolution occurs through a very large number of small mutations that are selected for in a large population of organisms. The development of new species occurs when two populations with common ancestry are separated by time and/or space and collect a different set of mutations due to different selection pressures. A species doesn't just sprout from 2 dogs.jimmanycricket wrote:
evolution says we have a common ancestor with apes not that we are apes.
It also says we have a common ancestor as a fish, but we are not fish.
What i dont get with the theory of evolution is that the gene pool is too small. Everyone knows that 2 dogs that have near identical genes have near identical gene children.
Ok, so you say that mutations occured and the ones that increased the amount of animals that got to child bearing age survived.
But in lab experiments where fruit flys are exposed to radiation to mutate. Small changes can be made, ie slightly bigger wings, but when ever one gained an extra leg or what ever they became infertile so didnt have ofspring.
how do you explain the massive variety of animals from, what it boils down to are single celled organisms.
Ok, i can see the advantage of being a 5 cells organism to a 1 celled 1. But when they are made of 60 odd cells, it becomes an inconveinence for the organism to split and reproduce.
How do you explain how an organ like the heart first apeared.
Evolution of complex organs (I don't know how reputable this site is, but I argee with everything on this page)
Last edited by cospengle (2007-01-03 15:16:57)
Down with the Church! With their Lies, decites, and murders!
Prove it....how the fuck can you evolve from something that still exists? If something "evolves" then it adapts and changes. One half of a species, even if isolated, cannot remain the same while the rest evolves.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Sorry, but that's so wrong I don't even know where to start...deeznutz1245 wrote:
One quick thing though, the person who wrote the article is an idiot. Anthropology 101 : you cannot have evolved from something that still exists!!!! It says in the first paragraph how humans evolved from apes.Impossible, how are there still apes then? I understand the point they are trying to make, that way, way back our DNA was once one, and then they split which is why they are so similar. But dont accuse an organazation of covering up something that is genetically impossible to begin with.
Malloy must go
yeah.cospengle wrote:
Kind of like the 'theory' of creation eh?Omnideath wrote:
The "church" isn't covering anything up. They just don't want the ideas presented as fact when they are merely theory.
Evolution happens to individuals, not to a species as a whole.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Prove it....how the fuck can you evolve from something that still exists? If something "evolves" then it adapts and changes. One half of a species, even if isolated, cannot remain the same while the rest evolves.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Sorry, but that's so wrong I don't even know where to start...deeznutz1245 wrote:
One quick thing though, the person who wrote the article is an idiot. Anthropology 101 : you cannot have evolved from something that still exists!!!! It says in the first paragraph how humans evolved from apes.Impossible, how are there still apes then? I understand the point they are trying to make, that way, way back our DNA was once one, and then they split which is why they are so similar. But dont accuse an organazation of covering up something that is genetically impossible to begin with.
Oh fuck, "intelligent design" again.jimmanycricket wrote:
How do you explain how an organ like the heart first appeared.
Look, its not intelligent, all right? It's not good enough to say, "Its so complex it must have been created", the inherent lack of logic in this statement is physically painful to me.
How about we say a superior being such as your "God" is obviously so complex that someone must have created him.....
??????????????? Evolution takes hundreds to thousands of years!!!!!! How long can one individual live? Im not friggin Optimus Prime ya know so I am going to die with the same parts I came into this world with. You have absolutely no scientific evidence to support your arguement.......at all. This has already been studied by the worlds leading anthropologists and evolution experts with vast resources and evidence. I am still waiting for yours.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Evolution happens to individuals, not to a species as a whole.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Prove it....how the fuck can you evolve from something that still exists? If something "evolves" then it adapts and changes. One half of a species, even if isolated, cannot remain the same while the rest evolves.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Sorry, but that's so wrong I don't even know where to start...
Malloy must go
What I mean is that evolution is a series of small mutations that all occur within single individuals.
Dont see what the issue is, adam and eve could quite easily have been apes, yes the bible said god made 'man' in his image, but doesnt specify if it is man as we know it, or where man evolved from, which ofcourse are primate's.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It's more correct to say that we're all primates.Fen321 wrote:
You guys do realize we are all apes?
Martyn
true, true.Bell wrote:
Dont see what the issue is, adam and eve could quite easily have been apes, yes the bible said god made 'man' in his image, but doesnt specify if it is man as we know it, or where man evolved from, which ofcourse are primate's.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It's more correct to say that we're all primates.Fen321 wrote:
You guys do realize we are all apes?
Martyn
Yes, it can. If there is no selection pressure on one half and there is on the other half, then they will diverge. If you have a population of bacteria, some of which have resistance to an antibiotic and some of which don't, and separate them into 2 flasks and grow 1 flask with antibiotic and one without, the ones that are grown with antibiotic will be selected for antibiotic resistance, and the ones that are grown without antibiotic will not.deeznutz1245 wrote:
One half of a species, even if isolated, cannot remain the same while the rest evolves.
"Organized religions are just cults with senority." - Dusk
LOL indeed - I saw at least 3 versions of your post - the first was the funniest!Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Lol.[RDH]Warlord wrote:
Technically, that's still incorrect. The sun is not the center of the UNIVERSE (just our solar system), but close enough.
Yes but...............cospengle wrote:
Yes, it can. If there is no selection pressure on one half and there is on the other half, then they will diverge. If you have a population of bacteria, some of which have resistance to an antibiotic and some of which don't, and separate them into 2 flasks and grow 1 flask with antibiotic and one without, the ones that are grown with antibiotic will be selected for antibiotic resistance, and the ones that are grown without antibiotic will not.deeznutz1245 wrote:
One half of a species, even if isolated, cannot remain the same while the rest evolves.
The mechanisms of evolution go a little something like this:
Biological evolution results from changes over time in the genetic constitution of species. Genetic changes often, but not always, produce noticeable changes in the appearance or behavior of organisms. Evolution requires both the production of variation and the spread of some variants that replace others.
Offspring with genetic mutations are different from their parents.
Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent's gene and that of its offspring. Some mutations affect only one bit in the DNA; others produce rearrangements of large blocks of DNA.
Genes can be shuffled between organisms.
Recombination occurs when genes from two parents are shuffled to produce an offspring, as happens regularly in sexual reproduction. Usually the two parents belong to the same species, but sometimes (especially in bacteria) genes move between more distantly related organisms.
Not all mutations become fixed in a population.
The fate of any particular genetic variant depends on two processes, drift and selection. Drift refers to random fluctuations in gene frequency, and its effects are usually seen at the level of DNA. Ten flips of a coin do not always produce exactly five heads and five tails; drift refers to the same statistical issue applied to the transmission of genetic variants across generations.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2007-01-03 16:02:51)
Malloy must go
lol whatever i misread his shit SHHHScorpion0x17 wrote:
LOL indeed - I saw at least 3 versions of your post - the first was the funniest!Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Lol.[RDH]Warlord wrote:
Technically, that's still incorrect. The sun is not the center of the UNIVERSE (just our solar system), but close enough.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Damn straight it's wrong. Horribly wrong.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Sorry, but that's so wrong I don't even know where to start...deeznutz1245 wrote:
One quick thing though, the person who wrote the article is an idiot. Anthropology 101 : you cannot have evolved from something that still exists!!!! It says in the first paragraph how humans evolved from apes.Impossible, how are there still apes then? I understand the point they are trying to make, that way, way back our DNA was once one, and then they split which is why they are so similar. But dont accuse an organazation of covering up something that is genetically impossible to begin with.
But unfortunately that's wrong too (you're thinking of Laplace's theory of adaptation - an earlier more primative evolutionary theory). Evolution occurs through genetics. Animals that have traits that cause them to be more successfull (and hence more likely to reproduce) are those that have genes that enable them to do well. As these genes are mixed with those of other survivors weaker genetic traits disappear. Over long periods of time this leads to drastic changes within the species as a whole (or just a part - especially if the species is spread throughout different environments where different traits will be beneficial - look at Australia or Madagascar and you can see good examples of evolution at work).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Evolution happens to individuals, not to a species as a whole.
It's been observed happening in plants, over more than a century evolutionary genetic alterations are made. It is almost impossible to directly observe in animals because of the much longer lifespan.jimmanycricket wrote:
What i dont get with the theory of evolution is that the gene pool is too small. Everyone knows that 2 dogs that have near identical genes have near identical gene children.
Just because you don't understand the intricate complexities of evolutionary biology doesn't make the evidence any less compelling. There are baffling jumps in the evolutionary process, but there are also more numerous observable (and explicable by current science) steps of evolution that can be seen in fossils like these. The more we study them the fewer gaps in human understanding of evolution there will be.jimmanycricket wrote:
Ok, so you say that mutations occured and the ones that increased the amount of animals that got to child bearing age survived.
But in lab experiments where fruit flys are exposed to radiation to mutate. Small changes can be made, ie slightly bigger wings, but when ever one gained an extra leg or what ever they became infertile so didnt have ofspring.
how do you explain the massive variety of animals from, what it boils down to are single celled organisms.
Ok, i can see the advantage of being a 5 cells organism to a 1 celled 1. But when they are made of 60 odd cells, it becomes an inconveinence for the organism to split and reproduce.
How do you explain how an organ like the heart first apeared.
Anyway, back to the article. I think this statement by Dr Leakey sums it up very nicely.
Religious nutters should not be allowed to let their far fetched ideas interfere with scientific, social or political developments.Calling the Pentecostal church fundamentalists, Dr Leakey added: "Their theories are far, far from the mainstream on this. They cannot be allowed to meddle with what is the world's leading collection of these types of fossils."
OK, but you were saying that "One half of a species, even if isolated, cannot remain the same while the rest evolves." But through genetic drift no population can remain unchanged whether isolated from another population or not. My point was that one speices can evolve from another whilst the original species remains (relatively) unchanged.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Yes but...............
The mechanisms of evolution go a little something like this:
Biological evolution results from changes over time in the genetic constitution of species. Genetic changes often, but not always, produce noticeable changes in the appearance or behavior of organisms. Evolution requires both the production of variation and the spread of some variants that replace others.
quoted source
The truth.Dusk_X2 wrote:
"Organized religions are just cults with senority." - Dusk
Powerful evangelical churches, pfft.
Do you even know what evolution is?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Prove it....how the fuck can you evolve from something that still exists? If something "evolves" then it adapts and changes. One half of a species, even if isolated, cannot remain the same while the rest evolves.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Sorry, but that's so wrong I don't even know where to start...deeznutz1245 wrote:
One quick thing though, the person who wrote the article is an idiot. Anthropology 101 : you cannot have evolved from something that still exists!!!! It says in the first paragraph how humans evolved from apes.Impossible, how are there still apes then? I understand the point they are trying to make, that way, way back our DNA was once one, and then they split which is why they are so similar. But dont accuse an organazation of covering up something that is genetically impossible to begin with.
1. One member of a species has a mutation that gives it a benifit. E.g Brown Moth turns to Black Moth, very simple pigment gene change. This helps because pollution has caused trees to blacked. This is the case in England 100 years ago.
2. It survives because birds cant pick it out. Thus it mates increased numbers of females.
3. Its offspring are born and continue this process.
So how is it then mister genious that the Brown Moth still exists. They dont kill each other off. It just causes a decrease or increase in population. Sometimes animals fight each other for territory and food, but that is the only way a species can be removed from an evolutionary line.
For fuck sake this is GCSE Biology. Thats what 15 years old know.
Donno but I know the eye has evolved independently 24 or 40 times (can't remember which). The octopussy's eye evolved independently from ours and has a different and better design. Probably a similar story with the heart.jimmanycricket wrote:
How do you explain how an organ like the heart first apeared.
<--- may still be a monkey!
Couldn't evolution be the answer of how and not why?
Edit:Quoted him wrong..lol
Edit:Quoted him wrong..lol
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-03 19:48:42)
Xbone Stormsurgezz