What questions do you have about evolution?

Originally posted by randyvs
Here's an easy one.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by randyvs]

Randy, why do you insist on using lies to promote your religion? Every thread I come across you in, you are pushing more and more lies in the name of your god. What god do you really serve? This video is a hoax.

Dawkins Stumped is a HOAX

If you knew anything about biology, you would understand why it is a nonsense question. I stumped you by simply asking about your god. You have since responded and failed to answer. Why keep pushing this hoax when you cannot even do any better in your own case?



Why do you keep using lies to promote Christianity?

It is alllllllllllllllllllllllll shown quite nicely for what it is HERE

1 The producers never deigned to send me a copy: I completely forgot about it until an American colleague called it to my attention. 2 See Barry Williams (1998): “Creationist Deception Exposed”, The Skeptic 18, 3, pp 7 – 10, for an account of how my long pause (trying to decide whether to throw them out) was made to look like hesitant inability to answer the question, followed by an apparently evasive answer to a completely different question.

All the answers you are looking for are there. Are you willing to read it? Are you willing to look at the fact that that video you keep pushing is a lie like most of your other posts?

With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated — not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length — the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
A major evolutionary success of mammals is fur - it's water-proof and keeps them warm. So why did we evolve to lose it? I've heard it said that it might be down to sexual attraction, but this answer seems to be just a guess.

That is an easy question to answer. You see ages ago at some point in time after the cataclysmic disaster that wiped out the dinosaurs, the temperatures in Ethiopia (where mankind originates from, presently in modern day Africa) were so hot that the hominids there who were the predecessors to the modern man were forced to walk erect so as to conserve energy. Walking erect consumes less energy than walking on all fours or with a stooped gait....As for the hair they lost it as there was a need to regulate body temperature to survive. This is also why they were forced to migrate.


[edit on 12-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

reply to post by Leonardo01
The temperature rose, so rather than emmigrating they decided to start stumbling about on their hind legs? It may take less energy now, but I'm sure it didn't initially. This new means of motion would have been extremely awkward and would be requiring constant and rather demanding muscular adjustment. How much time would you assume these primates dedicated to practicing this new skill? And if they are practicing this new technique, that's not natural selection - that's a considered action and one that's taken up by a whole community.

They didn't need to regulate temperature any more so they 'lost' their fur? Nobody needs wisdom teeth or little toes either.

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by Leonardo01

 

The temperature rose, so rather than emmigrating they decided to start stumbling about on their hind legs? It may take less energy now, but I'm sure it didn't initially. This new means of motion would have been extremely awkward and would be requiring constant and rather demanding muscular adjustment. How much time would you assume these primates dedicated to practicing this new skill? And if they are practicing this new technique, that's not natural selection - that's a considered action and one that's taken up by a whole community.

They didn't need to regulate temperature any more so they 'lost' their fur? Nobody needs wisdom teeth or little toes either.

Can you read?...I have clearly stated that this was one of the key reasons that they migrated and the temperatures in those times were not only "scorching hot" in Ethiopia but also hot world over in comparison to our present day temperatures. Nowhere have I stated that these changes happened overnight but rather were traits that the early hominids were required to develop to survive in such an harsh environment over a period of time....traits such as the ability to regulate body temperature by sweating which led to a loss of body fur and the eventual need to walk upright so as to conserve energy.

These links will clear up your misconceptions:

I hope you read these before jumping to arbitrary conclusions

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...











[edit on 12-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

reply to post by Leonardo01
There's very little science in that article and also not a unique 'theory' (if I should grant it that description) of how we ended up walking on two legs. A possible explanation isn't a fact, but then again evolution is an area of science that doesn't consider it needs facts.

A primate deciding to walk on its hind legs is a personal choice, it may master this technique and therefore be a more capable teacher to its off-spring, but this choice won't manifest itself in a chemical change of the DNA. It's no more natural selection than are sequential generations contributing to a data base that can be later read by anyone that decides to. You choose, or don't choose to use this database, but you don't gain the knowledge by spontaneous yet beneficial mutations.

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by Leonardo01

 

There's very little science in that article and also not a unique 'theory' (if I should grant it that description) of how we ended up walking on two legs. A possible explanation isn't a fact, but then again evolution is an area of science that doesn't consider it needs facts.

Unlike Creationism which is chock full of facts?

A primate deciding to walk on its hind legs is a personal choice, it may master this technique and therefore be a more capable teacher to its off-spring, but this choice won't manifest itself in a chemical change of the DNA. It's no more natural selection than are sequential generations contributing to a data base that can be later read by anyone that decides to. You choose, or don't choose to use this database, but you don't gain the knowledge by spontaneous yet beneficial mutations.

Anyone care to share their evidence for the opposing theory or does it only work to try and poke holes in evolution by claiming it lacks facts? Where are the facts in Creationism?

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by Leonardo01

 

There's very little science in that article and also not a unique 'theory' (if I should grant it that description) of how we ended up walking on two legs. A possible explanation isn't a fact, but then again evolution is an area of science that doesn't consider it needs facts.

A primate deciding to walk on its hind legs is a personal choice, it may master this technique and therefore be a more capable teacher to its off-spring, but this choice won't manifest itself in a chemical change of the DNA. It's no more natural selection than are sequential generations contributing to a data base that can be later read by anyone that decides to. You choose, or don't choose to use this database, but you don't gain the knowledge by spontaneous yet beneficial mutations.

Primates walking on its hind legs is not a "Personal" choice as you have put it...the early hominids were different from the primates that you see today.The bio mechanics and the body structure has favored such a trait evolving in early hominids but present day primates are not a valid comparison as they are "remarkably" different and walking erect puts a lot of stress on their tendons and vertebrae area...I will elaborate on this tomorrow.GTG home.

My question is an off-shoot of the famous, how did the first 'anything' get here. But my quandary digs a little deeper though.

For argument sake, let's just put the 'first' mammals here and not question the 'how or where' of the riddle.
Now my question is: did all the first mammals have belly-buttons? (Adam and Eve are surely depicted with one)

You want the semi-answer to it all? Here goes
(drum roll please.....................)

We are all genetically engineered by off-world entities. Period! That resolves 99.9% of life's mysteries!

Every single living thing on Earth (nature) is an expression of another alien-species. This is a smorgasbord of space-Beings.

I know this taints your science, religions and dogmatic belief systems but that's exactly the situation/problem at hand.

We're all systems. We're all mentally manipulated programs. Why do you think we have governments? To govern mental Beings.

Obviously, this is not who we REALLY are. We've been duped for eons and Halloween is almost over kids. All masks are about to come off and the real you is about to be revealed.

You'll see. Stick around. The show is just about to begin.
(You think all these spirals in the sky lately are misfired rockets or some sort of CGI trick? If you do then, stay asleep. We'll wake you right after this brief intermission)

[edit on 12-7-2010 by One Moment]

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Phlynx

 

Is there a so called missing link to the evolution of man, have we discovered every stage of human evolution so far?

To answer your question directly, No we have not found every missing link in the evolution of man. We do not expect to. Fossilization is a very rare event, this alone is reason enough to not expect to find fossil for every species that ever lived. ( or even close )

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
A major evolutionary success of mammals is fur - it's water-proof and keeps them warm. So why did we evolve to lose it? I've heard it said that it might be down to sexual attraction, but this answer seems to be just a guess.

There is a few idea on when/why we lost our coats. I seem to think a good start would be when we started to wear clothes and control fire, a fur coat would no longer be needed.

Growing hair takes energy and living things do not like spend said energy on useless effects.

Same reason we stopped growing tails, there is just no longer a use to these things.

Why don't whales still have fur ? If you think is is because male whales stopped being attracted to fury female whales..

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
Why do we not see any transitional forms today when there should be millions? according to Darwin's THEORY?

Why do the fossil records indicate that some species have NOT EVOLVED AT ALL in millions of years and still exist today as they did millions of years ago, surely they couldn't have reached their "LIMIT" in evolution?

What about Irreducible complexities?



www.talkorigins.org...

www.harunyahya.info...

Are you a poe ? Seriously you just linked talkorigins.org. That site answers your questions .. ON THE #ING PAGE YOU LINKED !
www.talkorigins.org...

reply to post by Robert Reynolds


Reckon that when you envision our ancestors you see them as being a monkey sort of like a chimpanzee or an orangutan or perhaps a gorilla right?....however that is incorrect. If you read my posts I term them as being hominids and it would be a fallacy to call them "monkeys" for they were not like our cousins that we see today....walking upright happened for these early hominids as natural selection favored such an evolution due to the prevailing conditions in Ethiopia....and this happened gradually meaning it took thousands of years(Which is fast by anthropological standards). You see after the cataclysmic disaster, the population of mammals who survived dwindled drastically due to the aftermath and the harsh environmental conditions....

For any theory to be tenable it must have sufficient evidence to back it up. There is not only sufficient archaeological evidence but also genetic evidence to back up this theory. After the complete mapping of the human genome it is clear that we originated from a single point in Ethiopia.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

ignore post

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

Originally posted by One Moment
My question is an off-shoot of the famous, how did the first 'anything' get here. But my quandary digs a little deeper though.

For argument sake, let's just put the 'first' mammals here and not question the 'how or where' of the riddle.
Now my question is: did all the first mammals have belly-buttons? (Adam and Eve are surely depicted with one)

You want the semi-answer to it all? Here goes
(drum roll please.....................)

We are all genetically engineered by off-world entities. Period! That resolves 99.9% of life's mysteries!

Every single living thing on Earth (nature) is an expression of another alien-species. This is a smorgasbord of space-Beings.

I know this taints your science, religions and dogmatic belief systems but that's exactly the situation/problem at hand.

We're all systems. We're all mentally manipulated programs. Why do you think we have governments? To govern mental Beings.

Obviously, this is not who we REALLY are. We've been duped for eons and Halloween is almost over kids. All masks are about to come off and the real you is about to be revealed.

You'll see. Stick around. The show is just about to begin.
(You think all these spirals in the sky lately are misfired rockets or some sort of CGI trick? If you do then, stay asleep. We'll wake you right after this brief intermission)

[edit on 12-7-2010 by One Moment]

We have belly buttons because we are placental mammals and are connected by an umbilical cord at birth....even apes have them(All placental mammals do).

Given the right conditions such as the "primordial soup"...life can very well be created from inanimate objects where amino acids I.E the basic building blocks for life come into existence...also termed as Abiogenesis this is when the first forms of life came into existence in the oceans.....

The link below explains how life originated from inanimate matter.
en.wikipedia.org...

Well as for your bizarre statement regarding aliens, are you perhaps a scientologist?










[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

reply to post by Johnze


Some foods taste good because we needed those kinds of foods.
Many years ago, humans needed a high fat, high sugar diet to give us enough energy to function. we developed so that we actively sought out those food stuffs. The best way for nature to ensure we went after those food stuffs was to make them taste good.
The down side of that is that now we don't have to hunt and gather (in the western world), our bodies still crave high fat and high sugar, but now it's too easy to obtain these foods, we don't burn off the energy we get from eating them, this is one of the main causes for obesity in the so called civilized world.
Thats why an orange tastes good.

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by Leonardo01

 

evolution is an area of science that doesn't consider it needs facts.

BS!Evolution is backed up by strong archaeological and genetic evidence.





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

reply to post by Phlynx


Okay- it bugs me, but I have a question (perhaps a doctoral thesis even!)

How it is that with the success of the agricultural cultures over the nomads that in a mere couple thousand years, there is no cultural significance (honor? respect?) of nomadic traits amongst the farmer cultures?

(caveat- other than mythological/ fictional - See movies Lawrence of Arabia, Jeremiah Johnson, etc)

Think I can figure out what the problem is with creationists.

Evolution makes everything sound boring and sciencey plus it makes you feel worthless right?.....

I mean its so totally cool to instead think that I am the son of god or something and shoot awesome lighting bolts from my hands...plus its badass



Chicks dig it too.





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

Or we descended from aliens who looked like this



See the awesome sex appeal this guy exudes...creationism is so much cooler than evolution.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
Why do we not see any transitional forms today when there should be millions? according to Darwin's THEORY?

Why do the fossil records indicate that some species have NOT EVOLVED AT ALL in millions of years and still exist today as they did millions of years ago, surely they couldn't have reached their "LIMIT" in evolution?

What about Irreducible complexities?



www.talkorigins.org...

www.harunyahya.info...

Are you a poe ? Seriously you just linked talkorigins.org. That site answers your questions .. ON THE #ING PAGE YOU LINKED !

www.talkorigins.org...

The article explains what an Irreducible Complexity is and how it can prove evolution is a flawed theory. I am asking the OP to argue that fact. This should be a pleasant and informative experience and your personal attacks are neither.

Also please remember that when Darwin came up with this stupid idea of evolution which is based on NO scientific or biological evidence at ALL when he had no idea about micro organisms and cellular structure.

www.allaboutthejourney.org...

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing


Are you a



the link again for your intelligent perusal..

www.talkorigins.org...





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]