Kansas beware...

Waiting to Exist · Post by **Waiting to Exist** » 6/19/2005, 1:16 pm

Well, evolution is always slow. I mean, we have documented history of humans that goes back a few thousand years. Humans were supposed to have evolved over a period of millions of years. Slow slow slow slow.

thirdhour · Post by **thirdhour** » 6/19/2005, 1:19 pm

Dude, in just one or two generations in japan, people have shot up several feet on average. It's mostly due to different nutrition though. In pre-globalization times, milk products (and meat to a different degree) were really rare in japan, as they simply didn't have the landmass to raise cattle on. Now they can just import it, and it's making people alot bigger.

You can't say that people have stopped evolving, because evolution happens over millions, hell, billions of years. It's not like an ape gave birth to the first human child. :lol:

You have problems with darwinism because more apes aren't turning into human beings? That's what darwinism is all about. You have say...500 of one species. Each one lives in a slighty different environment, and has to adapt to it. Not every single ape will turn into a human because they have developed into different 'breeds' of monkeys. Think of dogs. I'm going to assume (without any research) that all dogs originally started as one kind of four-legged mammal. Then, they adapted to their surroundings, and then later on got breeded by humans. Soon enough, there was hundreds of different breeds of dogs that look and act not much alike. They didn't all turn into poodles, but a few of them did.

The only problem I have with darwinism is that human beings are really really really smart compared to any other animals. As a species becomes better and smarter by the less 'fit' members dying off, shouldn't all types of animals have one 'breed' that's at least close to humans in the brain category?

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2005, 1:27 pm

I think it would help a damn lot if we had the advantage of comparing the growth and evolution of our plant's species with that of other inhabited planets. It would be interesting to see if they run on the same principles, and if so, then why, and if not, then why not?

AnnieDreams · Post by **AnnieDreams** » 6/19/2005, 2:01 pm

If you haven't noticed the change in height in humans, go in a really old building. If you're tall, you'll be hitting your head off of all the door-frames.

I think what might make humans much smarter, is that at some point, we excelled beyond any other species, and when we did that, we completely cancelled out Darwinism. We started taking care of eachother, whether we be slow, stupid, crippled, or sick. Because of this, physical attributes no longer mattered like they did to every other species, and because of that, our intellect excelled even more.
Or, we could be God's chosen race in his own image, you know.

But, in cases I've studied, Darwinism seems exactly right. Have you ever heard of the Peppered Moth or the San Jose Scale?

I've never studies Darwin's tree of evolution though, so that's not what I'm talking about.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2005, 2:43 pm

There's a problem with that theory, though: They found ample evidence that neanderthals began to take care of each other as well. They've found remains of neanderthals with crippling injuries or illnesses who shouldn't have been able to live to the age they did, and could have only done so if the community had supported (fed, sheltered, protected) them. They also had the beginnings of language and rituals, as evidences by graves adorned with pollen and other decorations and gifts.

It seems like homo sapiens, when they stumbled across this other genetic branch, killed off most of them (being more advanced at that point) and possibly interbred with some of them.

This is a satisfactory explanation to me as to why there is only one dominant species: if more than one species begins progressing that far, then the most evolved of the species will kill off the others (since they are in direct competition for dominance).

And by the way, the thing that catapulted humans to the forefront is that we began to be able to not only learn things (as any animal can do), but to somehow pass on a RECORD of things previously learned to our children and so on, with a cumulative effect. I believe Kurzweil uses the example of a river otter who learns how to use a rock as a tool to break open clamshells, but every otter learns that anew. There is no possibility of improvement on previous designs without some form of language.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 6/19/2005, 2:47 pm

I don't know about other religions, but I was taught that evolution has happened to a certain extent, and that God caused it to happen. I believe in both...maybe that's why it never upset me that much that evolution was being taught.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2005, 6:55 pm

That's what intelligent design is, I believe.

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 6/19/2005, 7:31 pm

Joe Cooler wrote:What's flawed about evolution? Well lets look at some basic icons of evolution you may have seeen in your text book starting with Darwin's "tree of evolution."

The idea behind Darwins Tree of Evolution is that all living species had a common ancestory and that evolution drove the variation of the countless animals we see today in effect branching out from one trunk. You simply have to look at the fossil recod to see that the tree is a failure. By looking at the fossil record we see basic ocean life like Jelly Fish and spounges. Then comes what sceintists call the Cambrian Explosion which resulted in nearly all the various types of life forms on earth popping up at once. The problem is there is no gradual divergence between the sea life and what arose after the Cambrian Explosion like Darwin expected. Darwin himself stated that the fossil record undermined his theory. He was hoping that later fossil discoveries would validate his theory but the opposite has occured.

Next comes the famous Miller experiment in which Miller was said to recreate the conditions of early earth to understand how life could have arisen (and then gone on to evolve) The result was that he created an amino acid which he stated was "an early building block of life." However today we know that the envirnment would have been totally unlike what Miller used in his experiment. Secondly an amino acid by itself will not go on to produce life. You could put ALL the building blocks of a cell in a glass of water and they wouldnt form into one, much less an amino acid.

Anyway i'm off for lunch. More later.

I'm sorry, but one flawed theory on it and one flawed experiment don't disprove the ENTIRE concept.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 6/19/2005, 8:47 pm

nikki4982 wrote:
Joe Cooler wrote:What's flawed about evolution? Well lets look at some basic icons of evolution you may have seeen in your text book starting with Darwin's "tree of evolution."

The idea behind Darwins Tree of Evolution is that all living species had a common ancestory and that evolution drove the variation of the countless animals we see today in effect branching out from one trunk. You simply have to look at the fossil recod to see that the tree is a failure. By looking at the fossil record we see basic ocean life like Jelly Fish and spounges. Then comes what sceintists call the Cambrian Explosion which resulted in nearly all the various types of life forms on earth popping up at once. The problem is there is no gradual divergence between the sea life and what arose after the Cambrian Explosion like Darwin expected. Darwin himself stated that the fossil record undermined his theory. He was hoping that later fossil discoveries would validate his theory but the opposite has occured.

Next comes the famous Miller experiment in which Miller was said to recreate the conditions of early earth to understand how life could have arisen (and then gone on to evolve) The result was that he created an amino acid which he stated was "an early building block of life." However today we know that the envirnment would have been totally unlike what Miller used in his experiment. Secondly an amino acid by itself will not go on to produce life. You could put ALL the building blocks of a cell in a glass of water and they wouldnt form into one, much less an amino acid.

Anyway i'm off for lunch. More later.

I'm sorry, but one flawed theory on it and one flawed experiment don't disprove the ENTIRE concept.

As I said, more later. I mentioned that experiment because you will be able to find Miller's experiment in any highschool text. Secondly you completely disregarded my first set of criticisms. There should be a fossil record that supports the evolution from sea life, to the animals of the cambrian explosion but it doesnt exist. That's a fairly large hit to evolution is it not? Darwin himself stated that "The most obvious and gravest objection that can be waged againts my theory" was the fossil record.

The third icon that l would like to cover is one I'm sure you are all aware of. The image of a monkey evolving into a human. Proof of course can be found in fossils of early humans correct? Well not really. Take for example the most famous skeleton, java man. What most people don't know is that the skeleton really only contained a skull cap, femur, a few teeth and that was it. Secondly the femur doesn't really even belong to the skull cap. The cap itself was actually human and large enough to contain a human that could easily hold a brain of a human alive today. Any other set of fossils used to promote our evolution from apes rarely contain more than a few teeth and skull fragments. It's quite sketchy at best.

All of this doesnt mean I don't believe in evolution in some forms. I believe in micro evolution and I doubt any serious promoter of intelligent design would, but I do not believe in Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution involves small gene changes over a few generations. An example would be how bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics. Macro-evolution is long term genetic changes that result in the creation of a new species.

Finally Intelligent design is not the belief that God created the universe and everything in it using macro-evolution as his vehicle. It's the belief that God created the Universe and everything in it be design. Every creature and everything has been designed and fined tuned for a purpose. Evolution does not compliment this line of thought because by definition evolution is random mutation, undirected by any force.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 6/19/2005, 9:21 pm

Let me also add that there is a lot of science that supports the idea of Intelligent design. One only has to look at the complexity of a human cell and the DNA within it to gain an understanding of how fine tuned it all is. You'll find little to no information about evolution in a microbiology textbook because the complexity of the cell and how it came to be simply cannot be explained by evolution.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 6/19/2005, 9:30 pm

Yeah, I was reading about that earlier. It's nearly impossible for a cell to evolve in such a complicated state.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 6/19/2005, 9:38 pm

That's why I actually loved my anatomy and physiology classes. When we learned about embryology, I could not beleive how amazing it is that there are any of us at all! Not to mention the absolute miracle of humans coming to be from the joining of two cells. But the amazing processes that happen to mother and child and most of the time both live through it. It only confirms my belief that there's no way all of that happened by accident.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2005, 10:17 pm

Let me just say that I hate that argument. If you had a bag with a billion differently coloured balls and you pulled one out and it happened to be blue, you wouldn't scream "WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THAT?" and chalk it up to the unknowable ways of an invisible magic man.

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 6/19/2005, 10:31 pm

Very well (and humorously) put, Alex.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 6/19/2005, 10:45 pm

happeningfish wrote:Let me just say that I hate that argument. If you had a bag with a billion differently coloured balls and you pulled one out and it happened to be blue, you wouldn't scream "WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THAT?" and chalk it up to the unknowable ways of an invisible magic man.

However if you were to find a million different bags, each with a billion balls, all of which are red except for one blue ball and then you reached into each and every bag and found that all of the balls pulled out were blue, you might then say there are simply to many coincidences to account for it all. That maybe there is someone pulling the strings. The perfect fine tuning of the universe is somewhat like this. So many variables and areas that could destroy any chance of life and yet they are all pefect in their layout.

Secondly if we are looking at the cell, it doesnt come down to a matter of chance in the first place. A cell could simply not have evolved from say an amino acid. Even if an experiment out there does manage to create a building block to life in conditions that may be like ancient earth, there is simply no way it can become a cell. A cell is made up of many complicated components, all which require the other parts to exist and operate. Even if all of the components were created all at once (which is infinitely closer than managing to create a "building block to life") there would be no way they could form together. It would be like placing all the components of a pocket watch in a container, shaking it up and expecting to find a working stopwatch when you opened up the lid.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2005, 11:02 pm

The answer? MAGIC!

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2005, 11:02 pm

Sorry.

I think I'll be leaving this topic for good, now.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 6/19/2005, 11:07 pm

happeningfish wrote:The answer? MAGIC!

My answer is God. See you later though.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 6/19/2005, 11:11 pm

I <3 Alexxx

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 6/19/2005, 11:12 pm

Who the heck are you anyway "Closeyoureyes" I went away for awile and I may have missed the name change. If there was a name change...