Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Really? So you are inferring that being classified as Apes and Eugenics programmes are related in some way?

Er, duh!

Eugenics, as a modern concept, was originally developed by Francis Galton. Galton had read his cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name, Eugenics.

en.wikipedia.org...


The rest is history.

Originally posted by JameSimon
We are all connected but we are all different.

Exactly! I am agreeing with you.

What I try to point out, is that because we have, as you call it, Exclusive genes, we thus can't technically be called "Apes". The classification of "Man" should thus be "excluded" from the classification of "Apes". This much should be apparent with modern genetic testing.

If we share 97.5 % of our gene with rats, And apes share 98.5 % of our genes, then I must conclude that apes share about 99 % of their genes with rats (feel free to review this, I'm not so good with maths). My point is, if apes, which thus share 99 % of their genes with rats, are not classified as rats, then why are humans, which share only 98.% % of their genes with apes, classified as apes?

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by gotya
reply to post by randyvs

 

I had people knock on my door today inviting me to church.

The door of my house.

Sounds excruciating. Getting up off the couch, opening a door, getting a friendly
invitation to join some good people in giving thanks and showing some respect
to the giver of life. Bet you missed a closing cliffhanger to your favorite soap.

Acutally it can be a real annoyance. I used to work nights years back, and was always awakened in the morning by the Mormons or Witnesses trying to chat it up with me. Even though I would tell them I worked nights, they would alwyas show up the next weekend morning. AND, the will pound on your door WAY past what a normal person would. Any normal person would give up after a couple of mins and walk away, not them, the will knock over and over for 10-15 min!

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by JameSimon
Supranumerary teeth (for example, having 6 incisives instead of 4) is not evolution, it's a birth defect caused by recessive genes.

Thanks for the information (giving you a star for it). It's good to meet someone who know his/her matter.

What I now must wonder, is how you define what is evolution and what is not? Some are very obvious. But other "birth defect" actually are evolution. Take a look at color-blindness. It is a recessive trait, yet it's also considered evolution, since it enables the mutant to see slightly better in monochromatic situation.

edit on 13-8-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

It depends. Some mutations "stick" to our genetic code, some don't. It's not fully understood nowadays, but it's being investigated. Here is a pratical example:

Green Eyes is a mutation of the dominant Brown eye color. It doesn't "stick" to the genetic code, making it much rare than brown or even blue eyes, for example. I've known a girl that has yellow eyes, it's a mutation also of the same gene. Now, if this would "stick" to our gene code, you could have people with randomly brown or green eyes and the same gene, only slightly mutated.

Color Blindness is hereditary but only under very specific conditions. I'm color blind, I have deuteranopia. There are 3 or 4 types of color blindness. But yes, its good on certain conditions and bad in other. Since its so specific its unlikely that the trait will become the norm.

Originally posted by swanne

Er, duh!

The rest is history.

Thanks. Though, in light of Eugenics being a (crackpot) idea of improving the human species through breeding (an idea mentioned as early as Plato).... could you answer the question, re being classed as Apes? How this (rather than human genetics) directly influenced it?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I think evolution and God are facts.

I think the "missing links" in he chain of evolution are caused by God making separate interactions with the universe... Thus there should be a gap for each time he said be and when he made man or any time he changed something.

But on to the topic:

It's not just science. It's all of state affairs - when they force separation of church and state. You don't hear history teachers teaching about religious pilgrimages, that washington saw an angel/fallen angel, that joseph smith spoke with an angel and uncovered some gold tablet thingy, that the worlds most advanced mathematics was given to some indian guy who spoke with gods, etc.

But I agree with your premise - in that they force separation as to turn people away from God.

Evolution by God...brilliant. So what scientists perceive as evolution is actually part of God's creation process. You even go so far as to include the missing link, the hand of God. That is all fine except there is no evidence of humans evolving, just bang blink of an eye we are here whereas before we were not, according to the fossil records. Incidentally this is the same with all other species, no birds then bang blink of an eye birds were everywhere fully developed as birds. Fish? No fish then bang oceans of fully developed species of fish appear in the fossil records. If evolution were the cause there would be one tiny fish then another type of fish then a few fish then a few more fish on and on, but there would be a definite long period where there were only a few types of fish. This is nowhere observed in the fossil record. If you go back far enough there are no fish, go forward to find fish and there are oodles of species of fish everywhere.

Evolution does not fit the evidence.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by JameSimon
We are all connected but we are all different.

Exactly! I am agreeing with you.

What I try to point out, is that because we have, as you call it, Exclusive genes, we thus can't technically be called "Apes". The classification of "Man" should thus be "excluded" from the classification of "Apes". This much should be apparent with modern genetic testing.

If we share 97.5 % of our gene with rats, And apes share 98.5 % of our genes, then I must conclude that apes share about 99 % of their genes with rats (feel free to review this, I'm not so good with maths). My point is, if apes, which thus share 99 % of their genes with rats, are not classified as rats, then why are humans, which share only 98.% % of their genes with apes, classified as apes?

edit on 13-8-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

Because animal classification is not related to genotype but to phenotype (the physical representation of our genes). Even if we share 97% of our genes with a rat, their relative position on the genotype changes what they configure and to what extent. We are classified by likeness and general characteristics. This is why we belong to the great apes group, because we are very similar.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That is all fine except there is no evidence of humans evolving, just bang blink of an eye we are here whereas before we were not, according to the fossil records. Incidentally this is the same with all other species, no birds then bang blink of an eye birds were everywhere fully developed as birds. Fish? No fish then bang oceans of fully developed species of fish appear in the fossil records. If evolution were the cause there would be one tiny fish then another type of fish then a few fish then a few more fish on and on, but there would be a definite long period where there were only a few types of fish. This is nowhere observed in the fossil record. If you go back far enough there are no fish, go forward to find fish and there are oodles of species of fish everywhere.

Evolution does not fit the evidence.

There isn't evidence in your small perception of the world. We have archaeopteryx, one fossil that shows the transition between dinossaurs and birds. Evolution doesn't have like you perceive it, it's a gradual process that takes millions of years. Hell, humans have been pretty much the same, bar some small characteristics, since more than 100 000 years ago.

And you are also expecting us to have fossils from 1 billion years ago. It has already been said in this thread that the condition in which a fossil happens are very particular and rare.

PS: The human species can be traced back about 7 million years to the past. We didn't just pop up into existence.

Originally posted by swanne


If Man is the evolution of apes, how come there's still (non-evolved) apes? The evolution theory seems incomplete.

There are no "non evolved" Apes. Only Apes that evolved separately/differently. We share a recent (in evolutionary terms) common ancestor and have evolved separately since then.

One aspect I find amazing is that there is a contradiction between morphology (the old fashioned way) and molecular biology. We are apparently the closest by far, morphologically, to the Asian Apes thought to be derived from Sivapithecus -ie. the modern Orang-utans. There is even a hypothesis (not well accepted) that at some stage one of these Asian Apes re-enterd Africa before spreading out again. Fascinating, whether right or wrong, there is a lot to our evolutionary past to learn yet.

Evolution does happen. But why was Mankind the only animal to evolve so fast? We can now communicate across the globe, eradicate diseases and reach the Moon and Mars. We can think about deep metaphysical concepts. Why the humans the only animal to ever do all of this?

Possibly natural selection.....or alien intervention as some might claim . I am sure some with knowledge in evolutionary biology would help you there (Human Accelerated Regions of the genome etc.). I will see if I can find the links, though I did follow the work of a British Anthropologist at one stage (a member here pointed me to her work), who was plotting things like bipedality, dexterity and even art and culture and finding from homonid fossils/endocasts that it was all consistent with neuroscience (re nervous system/growth in certain areas of the brain) and all showed a gradual progression consistent with evolution.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


as opposed to religion who backs up their "truths" with war, blood-shed, ignorance and hatred...killing of innocent men, women and children...or the fact that they book burn to help their agenda...or they can condemn a whole continent to a miserably slow death because the old fart in charge doesn't believe in condoms...but will rape little boys that look to these people for support...religion is a joke

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by gotya
*raises hand*

I have a question.

Why do people who believe in god find it necessary to convince non believers of its existance?

You never hear of people who believe in the theory of evoloution knocking on doors trying to convince the religious folk.

Why the hell do you care what I believe?

No they just have unfetterd access to spout there viewd in schools.

Scientific facts aren't views or opinions. They are facts backed up by actual research. Kids need a real education that doesn't consist of quotes from a 2,000 year old book written by a bunch of Arabs sitting in the desert.

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That is all fine except there is no evidence of humans evolving, just bang blink of an eye we are here whereas before we were not, according to the fossil records. Incidentally this is the same with all other species, no birds then bang blink of an eye birds were everywhere fully developed as birds. Fish? No fish then bang oceans of fully developed species of fish appear in the fossil records. If evolution were the cause there would be one tiny fish then another type of fish then a few fish then a few more fish on and on, but there would be a definite long period where there were only a few types of fish. This is nowhere observed in the fossil record. If you go back far enough there are no fish, go forward to find fish and there are oodles of species of fish everywhere.

Evolution does not fit the evidence.

There isn't evidence in your small perception of the world. We have archaeopteryx, one fossil that shows the transition between dinossaurs and birds. Evolution doesn't have like you perceive it, it's a gradual process that takes millions of years. Hell, humans have been pretty much the same, bar some small characteristics, since more than 100 000 years ago.

And you are also expecting us to have fossils from 1 billion years ago. It has already been said in this thread that the condition in which a fossil happens are very particular and rare.

PS: The human species can be traced back about 7 million years to the past. We didn't just pop up into existence.

On the scale of time as pertains to the earth's age, yes 100,000 years is a pop in time compared to billions. Lol at the 7 million year old human.
Where is the evidence of this gradual process? archaeopteryx was an avian that was misidentified as a dinosaur until they found a fossil with feathers, even then they couldn't come to terms that they were wrong, they tried to make it into some sort of missing link. Did dinosaurs just sprout feathers one day? I fail to see that as a missing link, there should be a whole transition of fossil records to show the evolution.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Humans are'nt more evolved, everything is at the same stage, its just that we fit our niche very well...we cant photosynthesise or survive in space or in the deep ocean or even see particularly well, there are thousands of species far more successful than us. But we do have decent brains and a creativity that makes us invent things as well as hands for grasping that are free because we walk on two feet.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That is all fine except there is no evidence of humans evolving, just bang blink of an eye we are here whereas before we were not, according to the fossil records. Incidentally this is the same with all other species, no birds then bang blink of an eye birds were everywhere fully developed as birds. Fish? No fish then bang oceans of fully developed species of fish appear in the fossil records. If evolution were the cause there would be one tiny fish then another type of fish then a few fish then a few more fish on and on, but there would be a definite long period where there were only a few types of fish. This is nowhere observed in the fossil record. If you go back far enough there are no fish, go forward to find fish and there are oodles of species of fish everywhere.

Evolution does not fit the evidence.

There isn't evidence in your small perception of the world. We have archaeopteryx, one fossil that shows the transition between dinossaurs and birds. Evolution doesn't have like you perceive it, it's a gradual process that takes millions of years. Hell, humans have been pretty much the same, bar some small characteristics, since more than 100 000 years ago.

And you are also expecting us to have fossils from 1 billion years ago. It has already been said in this thread that the condition in which a fossil happens are very particular and rare.

PS: The human species can be traced back about 7 million years to the past. We didn't just pop up into existence.

On the scale of time as pertains to the earth's age, yes 100,000 years is a pop in time compared to billions. Lol at the 7 million year old human.
Where is the evidence of this gradual process? archaeopteryx was an avian that was misidentified as a dinosaur until they found a fossil with feathers, even then they couldn't come to terms that they were wrong, they tried to make it into some sort of missing link. Did dinosaurs just sprout feathers one day? I fail to see that as a missing link, there should be a whole transition of fossil records to show the evolution.

When I say modern humans I say like you and me, but a 150 000 year human will look almost the same, if not equal. A 200 000 year one will be very similar. You'll probably need to go back 300/500 000 years to find key physical and intelectual differences.

And you not that scale are the evolutionary antecessor of feathers, right? You know that archaeopteryx was a dinosaur with feathers, right? Do you also know that Velociraptors, for example, had feathers, correct? There won't be evidence of gradual process because you cant have infinite fossil records.

You always need to place the fossil in historical and time perception. Example:

300 million years ago: Dinosaur X fossil
280 million years ago: Dinosaur X + short tail fossil
250 million years ago: Dinosaur X + feathers

You don't have the fossils inbetween, but you can correlate those dinosaurs with the same characteristics + differences while time goes by. You should be able to understand this.

What is wrong with ppl?
There is only one conclusion you can come to on this debate...we simply DON'T KNOW, I would find it funny how some ppl speak with such assurance about god if it did'nt wreak so much havoc, seriously, what is it about the ego that makes ppl believe that they know that god has a sex? do these ppl not understand that the universe is MASSIVE and we are only starting to learn about the world we live in? we do not know why we are here or even if there is a reason to be.

Personally i believe that there is a force out there that is bigger than myself, that is good enough for me, no books required, no worship necessary, no dogma needed, just that acknowledgement does it for me. This then means that i can be open toward other viewpoints but i do find myself bocoming less tolerant of ppl rehashing the same old doctrines of faith and trying to pass it off as knowledge.

It seems sometimes that we are witnessing evolution happening right before our own eyes as a new breed of human develops, using reason, logic and observable and testable information (science) whilst other ppl cling on to the the old ways of fear and superstitions.

rant over.

Originally posted by KaelemJames

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

And, who says that Hominids didn't live before Genesis 1:2? That is; Before God created man in Genesis 1:27.

People stick to that we are from ape. We, our children, are being taught this because we follow knowledge of the flesh, and then we call it "common sense" & "Fact!"

How many people study that gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? We don't care to study or research it. I am not even talking to study and learn from scripture alone, but by Spiritual Guidance. And, if i say we need to trust that through Spiritual Guidance we will be shown answers, i get called crazy. Why? Because flesh have already "proven" we evolved from an ape-like creature.

Man trusts flesh, not that which is Higher than us. Think we know all? We are not Omniscient. We, in flesh, cannot even fathom what true knowledge is. We fill our empty voids in our search for answers with the knowledge of flesh and don't trust in Him to gain Spiritual knowledge.

My "rant" (which it is not

) i am putting here to ask people to search and ask, but not with the knowledge and trust in flesh, but with the guidance of our Creator. We can see & hear, we can truly see & hear. Our hearts are screaming for truth. Go and get it. It is for free.

All I can say is that science can back up what it claims (though it isn't infallible). I can also see the potential for spirituality (in some form) and don't think you're crazy, just mistake in this instance (IMO).

Originally posted by robin22391
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Humans are'nt more evolved, everything is at the same stage, its just that we fit our niche very well...we cant photosynthesise or survive in space or in the deep ocean or even see particularly well, there are thousands of species far more successful than us. But we do have decent brains and a creativity that makes us invent things as well as hands for grasping that are free because we walk on two feet.

Agree completely.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Why is it so hard for you to understand that when ancient creatures died they didn't all just get preserved. In any case the fossil record is bursting under the weight of new discoveries...just have a look and see for once rather than selectively reading creationist mumbo jumbo and pointing out a few dead ends from among the millions of amazing discoveries.

Do you have any idea how annoying it is to be an expert in something and for someone who refuses to listen to ask brainless questions that are answered in any decent school biology book.

this article from newscientist answers pretty much all the stupid questions, and if you cant find an answer in there i recommend reading the greatest show on earth.

www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
Is this supposed to somehow show evolution is wrong? A couple hoaxes, a scientist that came to incorrect conclusions from over a century ago, a bunch of mistakes, a biased article by someone that apparently doesn't understand the mountains of evidence regarding Neanderthals, or that Neanderthals were a contemporaneous species and not a "missing link" but are more concerned with some huckster, the more than 200 years of study of the peppered moth that has, in fact, stood up to rigorous scrutiny, Dawkins being a proponent of the possibility of panspermia?

Sorry, no. What you've just gone on and on about would be akin to someone "proving" Christianity false by pointing to Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, the Salamander Letter or Kinderhook Plates. There is an astounding amount of evidence for evolution and more is found almost daily. Enough to actually fill entire museums the world over. Unlike creationism, evolution stands up to the scientific process.

Of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, points of data, studies, observations, predictions, fossils, DNA studies, etc., you've pointed to a handful of frauds that constitute far less than 0.0001% of the evidence. Creationism continues to try to fall back to a safer position but it's increasingly relegating itself to a "god of the gaps" theology. These are its death throes. Its final last spasm of fight before total irrelevance.

I have to agree with everything you say. Mountains upon mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but as you said there will always be frauds out there. This may be creationisms last stand, I say let this idea of creationism fall by the wayside into the mists of time.

reply to post by JameSimon


You will be interested in this article from nature discussing the discovery of feathers in ancient amber, yet more snippets of the past that will be disregarded by creationists.

www.nature.com...