Adam & Eve had tails? Someone answer these:

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
reply to post by Daniem

 

I hate to break the news and I'm sure everyone will jump on me for it and disagree but.

Some upgrading changes have taken place in our DNA and for certain races depending on location throughout the world but we did not use to have tails and we did not evolve from another species.

Pretty pretty please.

So if were upgraded then obviously our alleged creator (s) didn't get it right the first time around.

Perhaps a downgrade then, (would fall in line withe fall) we never had a tail but now we're evolving one and turning into some kind of monkey thing, we have the stumpt to begin with.

Obviously our cousins the chimps have been downgraded too but they're ahead of us coz they got the full hair allready.


I wasn't there to know if the first human had a tail or not but I know i have a stump, which is either the begining or the end of a tail.

I'm told (alleged LOL) that I have a brain and the more I use it the greater the increase of the thinky bits there is.

So if I don't use my brain the obviously the thinky bits will decrease over time and if all my future family do the same, there may be a baby born with a remnant of a brain ?


I quite fancy the idea of having a tail, I could put my jeans on backward and look like a big boy lol












[edit on 13-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Originally posted by moocowman
I quite fancy the idea of having a tail, I could put my jeans on backward and look like a big boy lol

and think how easy it would be to get that itch on your back you can never quite reach well enough

i could smoke drink coffee and type all at the same time too...would make one hell of a mess though, thats ofcourse hoping its a prehencile tail

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


No, natural selection makes perfect sense. Maybe you should try to understand it before you show us all just how little about it you understand.

Of course the fossil record is not going to be complete. It's very unlikely any given animal is going to leave a fossil when it dies.

And macro evolution is the same as micro evolution. It's all evolution. "Macro evolution" is a term creationists use to try to separate a single process into two so they can jump around saying stuff like "but have you personally seen it happen??", as if that helps their cause.

It's called a scientific theory, not just a theory. Please understand what you're trying to rail against before attempting to rail, as it just makes you look a bit silly, that's all. You are trotting out the same arguments we've heard for years, all of which have been soundly destroyed.

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


We are animals. We are made from the same material as other animals. We are made from the same building blocks. We have witnessed other species (smaller, which reproduce quicker) turned from one species into another. We have seen bacteria and viruses evolve to become resistant to treatment, etc.

There is not one single shred of evidence against the scientific theory of evolution, and all kinds of evidence in support of it. The exact opposite is true for creationism/ID.

Read the Wikipedia article on evolution here - it will fill in the blanks you seem to be missing.

Learning is key.

Here's another thought about Adam and Eve ...

If they were real (and I do not think they were), then they wouldn't have had belly buttons. Supposedly God spot zapped them into existence and therefore they wouldn't have ever had need of a cord - and so no belly button.

Originally posted by dave420
[And macro evolution is the same as micro evolution.

No it's not.

Macro evolution states that one species becomes another species. There is no evidence of that.

Micro evolution is natural selection - not 'evolution' as most people think of it. There is plenty of evidence of micro evolution. Breeders do it all the time. that's why we have so many different cat and dog breeds.

Some people are still born with tails. It is rare, but it still happens. Here is a picture to use as an example. Yet another example of an evolutionary throwback that shows we have a common ancestor with other primates. It kinda looks funny IMO.

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


you're joking right? As a physical Anthropology student, I was actually caught in a fit of hysterical laughter, almost painfully so reading that post. We have fossil records of countless primates, showcasing exactly when bipedalism took hold, early tool use, differentiation between species in terms of brain cavity size, etc coming from early robust australopithecine all the way to early homo species(erectus/habilis). Anyone arguing that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with modern apes clearly hasn't even opened a book on the subject of anthro.

reply to post by dave420


Your entitled to your own opinion and I can respect that, I've seen the evidence out there but it cannot disprove my suggestion if we were created and placed here, if you read my post more clear you will see that I agree with you on most of your points, I state that animals and other lifeforms do evolve and some have evolved and that we are all made of the same material and that Humans can evolve physically as well but that the process of this can take hundreds of thousands to millons/billions of years for something to evolve. (Depending on what that is and how much of a change takes place) But it doesn't mean we change from one species into another or grow wings.

I also stated that I believe we were placed here/created exactly in the same form we are now and nothing has dramatically changed since the time we were placed here. So in a way we as humans are in fact extraterrestrials to the planet as we did not naturally evolve as a species from another species on earth but were created from a higher intelligence that placed us here. This doesn't mean we were not created from the same kind of stuff that the animals were created from because we were but we were also created and did not evolve from them thus separating us from the animals.

This does not mean to say that animals do not evolve and that humans do not have the capability of evolving only that from the time we were created and placed here from a higher outside intelligence we have remained the same for the most part 2 legs, 2 arms, 5 fingers, head, feet, no tail.

I was hoping to get my wings soon though.










[edit on 13-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Here's another thought about Adam and Eve ...

If they were real (and I do not think they were), then they wouldn't have had belly buttons. Supposedly God spot zapped them into existence and therefore they wouldn't have ever had need of a cord - and so no belly button.

Good point, I also don't believe in the literal Adam and Eve story the way it was written but I do believe there was an Adam and Eve meaning the first 2 humans of creation that were placed here on earth. 1 male 1 female. (At least the first 2 humans for this world that is) Now how that came about could have been from splicing/mixing outside DNA with a neanderthal/primate or other species unknown to us but I do believe we were genetically altered or /created in one way or another/assisted to make that leap. I do not believe we naturally evolved from primates/neanderthals all on our own IMO.

p.s. If Adam and Eve didn't have belly buttons then of course their children would naturally.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There's really no evidence humans ever had tails.

EEeeeek!
www.metacafe.com...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No it's not.

Macro evolution states that one species becomes another species. There is no evidence of that.

Micro evolution is natural selection - not 'evolution' as most people think of it. There is plenty of evidence of micro evolution. Breeders do it all the time. that's why we have so many different cat and dog breeds.

micro evolution leads to speciation which is macro evolution(well the early stages of

your using the silly creationist misnomer version of macro evolution, a monkey will not give birth to a man so macro doesnt exist

speciation has been observed, speciation plus further micro evolution and more speciation leads to .......

theres no evidence .... yes the entire fossil record does not exist obviously

most people who? i dont care what most people think just the sciencey ones that know whats going on. truth is not a democratic process

and dog/cat breeding is not natural selection its forced selective breeding

Hey all you g-dless heathens! How's the life? I do believe the literal translation of the creation account, I'm also FULLY versed in paleo-anthropology. The fact is, in the old testament account it describes G-d consulting with the angels before man was created in THEIR image, i beleive is the literal wording, and it says G-d created man, and only then goes on to say "He breathed the soul of life into his body". This would indicate that the body of man existed for some time in a soulless state, cave-man, Neandertal, australapithacene, what have you. It's just that some people, working off "iffy" translations miss the nuance and grace of the original wording.

reply to post by Aggie Man




Mutations/Malformities/Deformities happen all the time but it doesn‘t mean cats once had 8 legs then lost the other 4.

This guy could use a shower and shave, I wonder where he came from.

Do we really believe this is a sign of evolution? Did they really make it this far.

...OK I'm stretching it...lol

Could this be a sign that we were all once midgets?..

reply to post by dashen


What scriptures?? I don't remember reading that...can you provide the scripture numbers? Thanks...

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


Ummm, In this case, YES. I have a MS in Biology and the human tail is what we call a vestigial structure. I have done research on this and have been given the knowledge of MANY professors on this topic. It is what I state it is and not a mutation.

Nice pictures of mutations you have presented to argue your case though. They just don't apply to what I said.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by noobfun

 

I think you are wishing something was there that isn't. humans never had tails. With all the many deformities that have occurred in humans I don't think any have produced a tail. Wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists will not change that fact. sorry.

except there are many photo's medical journals video x-ray people with ....

some of these tails contain only muscle and softtissue and some contain vertebrae or the makings of

some of these tails are controlable and mobile some are not, so either we had tails and its a throwback or we didnt and we are growing them

it is strange that ALL mammals have some form of tails except humans where it is now purely internal except for real and pesudo tails

The only thing I learned in anthropology was that bonobos are promiscuous so I don't have much to say on the matter except that those tails in the picture look like.... well never mind.

Originally posted by Daniem
I didnt say christians believe that.. as most christians DONT believe that. Most christians believe in evolution.. so this one is only for the creationists.

Isn't that kinda funny? Arent christians supposed to believe in creation, not evolution? lol I for one perfer a hybrid theory, that God created this earth, then let it go about its way, building life. God's just chillin sayin 'ehh, I have eternity, why not grab some popcorn and watch the show!'

A little more on topic, Lemurs? I think I had heard that before, but for some odd reason it doesnt make sense to me. I for one can understand the ape thing, because apes can be so smart, they practically act JUST like humans, so it makes more sense to me personally.

reply to post by noobfun


If your aware of some source which shows "the missing link" has been found please do share. My point was not to attack evolution or creationism, but simply point out that there is not definative proof. Cases can be made for both, my problem is that evolution is taught as absolute fact, when it is still just a theory. Freedom of thought is a powerful thing, and it is consistantley being suppressed within the public school system. Throughout history it is shown that what is fact today could be false tommorow, especially in the field of science and medicine. Take a time machine back just 600 years or so and declare the world is round, and you would be labeled a nut job. Those advances are only made when someone questions the status quo. So again I realize you have your views and can present evidence that supports the THEORY of evolution, but at this time there is not concrete, definitive, absolute, scientific proof that MACRO evolution is the simple complete truth, just like the creationist you have formed your hardline belief ultimately on faith.