Playaa September 29, 2003 Share Playaa Member September 29, 2003 I can wholeheartedly agree on the evolution within a species...that IS a scientific fact and anyone who knows anything about science can't deny it....it's evolution to a new species that I can't stand. by the DNA molecule working 100% of the time I mean the actual insides and the processes it goes through...not the mutations and variations it creates....sorry for that misconception. one thing that bugs me about the "Theory of" thing is that our government schools teach it saying it's the "Theory Of" but they back it as if it's the only choice. How many science classes are teaching Intelligent Design as a Theory Of the beginnings of this earth? Not even talking a god created the earth just the fact that Intelligent Design plays such a HUGE role in the earth...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL September 30, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member September 30, 2003 I think what you are calling "evolution within a species" is better described as adaptation. Species adapt as is needed or die off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight September 30, 2003 Share White Knight Member September 30, 2003 I disagree. M-W.com Main Entry: evo·lu·tion Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&- Function: noun Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere Date: 1622 1 : one of a set of prescribed movements 2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3 : the process of working out or developing 4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations 5 : the extraction of a mathematical root 6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena As I regress Darwin never stated that he felt that Evolution caused the fish to become the Human. He only discussed the slow changes within a species brought on by outside influences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa September 30, 2003 Share Playaa Member September 30, 2003 yeah Dweez I know what your saying..... and there are 2 different types of evolution Macro Evolution - which I believe is false Micro Evolution - which is adaption and proven I might start using the word "adaption" instead because sometimes in these conversations people get confused when talking about evolution....they don't know which type you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX September 30, 2003 Share NOFX Member September 30, 2003 (edited) I dont see how people dont understand, or can not get the concept of evolution. Look around, everything experiences evolution. Look how a stream/river is formed. Look how our land masses has evolved into what they are now, by the means of plate tectonics. Evolution means over time, (a very LONG time). Check out the geologic cycle, doesnt show how the earth formed but will show how it evolved into what it is today. you believe that there is evolution within a species? but you dont believe in evolving to new species? What do you define species as? Species is just a word to describe a particular type of organism. Say you have a HUGE pack of rats. Plate tectoncs breaks a continent in half, and splits the pack up. Now you have two different packs of rats. Now over the course of the new few million years, each pack will experience many different things, Now do you think the two packs of rats will be the same? Now take that concept, with a bigger animal, Split them farther apart, totally different climates and much longer period of time. Then those groups divide into 4, then those four divide apart into 8 groups, then those 8 groups divide and you have 16 groups. And these 16 groups never come in contact with one another and its been 100 million years since the first group started. Now do u think they are going to be the same? Look at it like a seed starting out and growing out like a tree. All the leaves on the tree are a different creature. edit* Thats is as good as i can explain it, I dont know whether people do not understand it, or they dont want to understand it. Because if you understand it, u shouldnt really have any questions. Its a science, biologist/geologist dont spend their lives trying to prove this. They spend their lives trying to prove it wrong. Edited September 30, 2003 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa September 30, 2003 Share Playaa Member September 30, 2003 NOFX I see what you're saying and I could see how you can deduce that man is the evolution of a monkey. The whole problem with it derives from this. I'm gonna make some statements and explain the problem...I'm not going to explain the statements because that would take an entire lifetime (that lifetime being equal to my life because it's taken that long for me to get to this point) I believe in one God. I believe that God is the God of the Bible. I believe the Bible to be truth. The Bible says God created the Universe. The Bible says Man was created without mentioning primates. The Bible says Man is God's child. The Bible says Man has dominion over nature and it's creatures. The Bible never talks about a monkey going to Heaven. Therefore, I do not believe (and in fact CANNOT believe due to my other beliefs that have been proven to me) that Man is an evolution of a primate. so to put it simply (and yeah I know alot of people will read these next words and take it TOTALLY wrong) I don't believe man evolved from primates because the Bible doesn't say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX September 30, 2003 Share NOFX Member September 30, 2003 (edited) nice post , everyone had their beliefs and can believe what they want to. I no longer try to convert anyone to my beliefs, i just try to explain and let people take it how they will. You could be just as right as I am, because none of what we are talking about is "facts". I never said I didnt believe in God or a God. But I can say I dont believe in the christian bible. Because we are the ones that wrote it and what we know today was translated a measly 400 years ago. Edited September 30, 2003 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight September 30, 2003 Share White Knight Member September 30, 2003 My response to your statements NOFX is a bit different than playaa's. I apologize, but I'm going to have to pick your statement appart. I dont see how people dont understand, or can not get the concept of evolution.Obviously I do, because I can discuss it. Look around, everything experiences evolution. Look how a stream/river is formed. Look how our land masses has evolved into what they are now, by the means of plate tectonics. Evolution means over time, (a very LONG time). Check out the geologic cycle, doesnt show how the earth formed but will show how it evolved into what it is today. Now you are confusing the subject. A river might alter its course by slowly eating at the land but it does not turn into a mountain over time. Of course, that is mute because the Theory of Evolution is limited to living organisms. What you are describing is Geography, and does not deal with living organisms. you believe that there is evolution within a species? but you dont believe in evolving to new species?Yes I believe I've stated that. What do you define species as? Species is just a word to describe a particular type of organism. "A species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that is reproductively isolated from other such groups" (Mayr, 1969) So that being said, if 2 individuals CAN mate and produce offspring then they are of the same species. Therefore, since man cannot mate w/ monkey and produce half monkey, half human offspring, then we are not the same species (though I believe many men belong in the monkey species). Say you have a HUGE pack of rats. Plate tectoncs breaks a continent in half, and splits the pack up. Now you have two different packs of rats. Now over the course of the new few million years, each pack will experience many different things, Now do you think the two packs of rats will be the same?No but they will be the same species. For instance, Dingo's are dog/wolf cousins removed by millions of years, and look completely different from each other. Yet, as proof of being the same species, they can still mate and produce offspring. The same goes for wolf/dog, coyote/dog, wolf/coyote matings. If the Dingo and the Wolf couldn't produce offspring, then that would be some proof of evolution IF a common ancestor can be proven. Now take that concept, with a bigger animal, Split them farther apart, totally different climates and much longer period of time. Then those groups divide into 4, then those four divide apart into 8 groups, then those 8 groups divide and you have 16 groups. And these 16 groups never come in contact with one another and its been 100 million years since the first group started. Now do u think they are going to be the same? Is this why (and not to be snide) europeans and native americans can still breed? 2 Subspecies of humans seperated by millions of years to the extent that their head, eyes and skin are different, yet can still mate? The problem with your 'over time completely different animals' hypothesis is that after hundreds of years of digging into the earth looking for the ancient ancestor of both monkey and horse has yet to be found....and wont be found. That is why many modern evolutionists have abandoned 'long time different animal' theory for something called Spontaneous Variation to come up with the missing link. The Theory associated with Spontaneous Variation basically says... Duck, Egg, Duck, Egg, Duck, Egg, Eagle. ...of course this is even more far fetched than 'over time different animal'. The other big problem with Evolution is the 'beginning of life' problem. How do you start it? How do you come up with this brilliant genetic code thing called DNA? By chance? You've got to be kidding me. Do you realize how many DNA chains it takes to produce 1 single protein... much less an amoeba? Ok, thats it for now, gotta get back to work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL September 30, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member September 30, 2003 I never said I didnt believe in God or a God. But I can say I dont believe in the christian bible. Because we are the ones that wrote it and what we know today was translated a measly 400 years ago. Please show proof of that. There are copies of copies of copies of Manuscripts many times older than 400 years. Please research before you post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy September 30, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member September 30, 2003 the problem, and why i mention punctual equilibrium, is that there are no progressive stages in evolutions evidence (species to species). People point out that if evolution is true why is it we see none of these neantrethals? After all there are the low lever monkeys and the higher level man but no evidence of inbetweens in any species. You dont see crocs or lizzards with beaks nor do you see seals with wings. These middle stages (from my very little knowledge) were explained with PE. Thus the alligator did hatch the penguin. Species within species (micro) is understandable. But monkey to man is a bit harder to prove. so the question remains for me where are these inbetween evolving primates? Long live Arnold S. for Cal Gov. Long Live CS Long Live Auggybendoggy! OUT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight October 1, 2003 Share White Knight Member October 1, 2003 Long live Arnold S. for Cal Gov. Oh that's just too funnny. I've been giving one of my buds at work a hard time over the fact that the Terminator might be the next governor of his home state... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX October 1, 2003 Share NOFX Member October 1, 2003 (edited) I dont have any websites for proof of that, but I have done plenty of research. It is a known fact that the bible you read was translated around 400 years ago, around 1650 something if I remeber. Under the rule of king james. Hence, the king james version. People like william shakesphere translated it, thats why it sounds rhymatic and kind of like poetry. The first version was written in hebrew and translated many times through the cultures and is what we have now. (i wonder how much it has changed) Im not going to search the internet for pages on this, but im sure there is plenty out there. So I have no proof other than the books here in the library and my american litature teacher from where i had to do a research paper on revolations vs metamorphisis. If you would like to know more, there is probably sites somewhere on the net. Gotta go take a test...Ill post more later Edited October 1, 2003 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa October 1, 2003 Share Playaa Member October 1, 2003 (edited) well you're SORTA right NOFX the King James Bible was translated by the scribes of King James directly into english from the first version (the hebrew/greek one.....OT was in Hebrew NT was in greek) and any version you read today was also DIRECTLY translated from those same origionals....the New American Standard version didn't take a look at the King James then decide which parts to translate different....it went to the origionals (in hebrew and greek) and translated to common tongue. So yes things HAVE changed from the origionals to now...but not like you'd think. just like if you went to shakespeares time and asked him for a f.ag (don't know if that will get through filter) he would give you a bundle of small sticks used as kindling for a fire. Then you go to early 80's Great Britain and ask for a f.ag and you're gonna get a joint (pot, weed...hippy happy maker...you know...and no I don't know) and if you ask for a f.ag NOW in 2000's america...you're gonna get a ghey (hadda get it around filter) guy. Those are the types of things that have changed in the Bible from the origional translations....it has been translated so that we can better understand what it was talking about origionally because language changes daily. Edited October 1, 2003 by Playaa/Pselus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX October 1, 2003 Share NOFX Member October 1, 2003 (edited) ^ | | I meant my world Lit teacher. Now you are confusing the subject. A river might alter its course by slowly eating at the land but it does not turn into a mountain over time. Of course, that is mute because the Theory of Evolution is limited to living organisms. What you are describing is Geography, and does not deal with living organisms.Im not talkin about how a river forms a mountain. I was just saying how a stream forms, there is a flat level of water very slowly going down hill. there is certian course that the water takes that will be faster. As the water continues to go over it, and as more water moves into the easiest place, it starts to move sediment and eventually the creek bed is formed. I was just pointing out that everything evolves. Is this why (and not to be snide) europeans and native americans can still breed? 2 Subspecies of humans seperated by millions of years to the extent that their head, eyes and skin are different, yet can still mate? The problem with your 'over time completely different animals' hypothesis is that after hundreds of years of digging into the earth looking for the ancient ancestor of both monkey and horse has yet to be found....and wont be found. That is why many modern evolutionists have abandoned 'long time different animal' theory for something called Spontaneous Variation to come up with the missing link. The Theory associated with Spontaneous Variation basically says... Duck, Egg, Duck, Egg, Duck, Egg, Eagle. ...of course this is even more far fetched than 'over time different animal'. well, humans did break apart from one another, human and neanderthal. europeans and americans are just like the dingos and the wolves(havent been apart long enough). Your not going to find a skeletons of every different time a monkey evovled. But you do find skeletons of different forms of apes slowly changing into what we are shaped like. And they do have the skeletons of certain animals. Take for instance a whale, that used to be a land creature. Whales are sometimes born with little nubs in the back, where their legs used to be. (If its not where their legs used to be, then what else could it possibly be?) Also, humans are sometimes born with very small tails, where the spinal cord keeps extending.(What could possibly be the reason for this) And no I do not have any sources. But try to search the internet for a baby being born with a tail. I distinctly remeber that photo from my 11th grade biology book. again im not trying to prove anythign, I may be talkin alot about evolution, but that doesnt mean i dont know anything about religion. I look at the evidence on both sides and choose the one that makes the most sense to me. Edited October 1, 2003 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower October 2, 2003 Share Watchtower Member October 2, 2003 http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/stude...gar/erectus.htm ? Check this pages out! Awesome presentation! A must click! http://www.becominghuman.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL October 2, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member October 2, 2003 well, humans did break apart from one another, human and neanderthal. europeans and americans are just like the dingos and the wolves(havent been apart long enough). Your not going to find a skeletons of every different time a monkey evovled. But you do find skeletons of different forms of apes slowly changing into what we are shaped like. And they do have the skeletons of certain animals. I don't seem to recall there ever being any ape skeleton's found showing the evolution of apes. There has never been a "missing link" found that connects one species to another. As Playaa has said, there have been reconstructions made based on very little fossil evidence (a small part of a jawbone here, a small part of a legbone there, often thousands of miles apart) but, just as anything extrapolated from little data, the finished form often is based highly on the reconstructors slant or desires. If the guy wants it to look like a missing link then it will but it is nearly impossible to get a full-form picture of something based on just 0.5% of actual material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo77 October 2, 2003 Share Theo77 Member October 2, 2003 you guys have no idea how happy i am to hear that I am actually playing an internet game with other christians!! w0ot to the max!! :prop: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy October 3, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member October 3, 2003 the inbetween or mid stages of fossils is not at question. Evolution in real time is what is at question. Why are there no inbetweens of man and ape now? We know 2 facts: 1. There is a low level monkey primate in different various forms 2. There is man in different various forms. Why did evolution quit evolving in between stages. It took a entity...evoloved to monkey...evolved to man...then suddenly stopped only to continue mans evolution AND RESTART MONKEYS? No cigar with that. There is no resaonable explanation that I have been offered as to why we do not have neandrethals in the zoo. The best reasonsble answer at this time is to say there are no inbetween beings at this point because there never was inbetween beings. Evolution then must have a mind of its own...sounds like what watch might be suggesting...or may i say that a mind controls evolution. Auggybendoggy, P.S. laugh at arnie now, but if you had Grey davis as your Gov you'd be beggin for Arnold. P.S. Im a proud father of a 7.5lb little girl named Emma. Yahoo! Shes sooo cute. she was born 12:15 am Oct 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL October 3, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member October 3, 2003 Congrats on the kid auggy!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX October 3, 2003 Share NOFX Member October 3, 2003 There have been ALOT of fossil skeletons of different types of apes found. They dont "prove" evolution, but based on the approx date of the fossil(and location of the fossil) you can see how the two skeletons are related. When people think about evolution, I think they believe it was something like metamorphases.(which couldnt be farther from what some people believe). I forgot the ratio, but something like 1 out of 100,000 offspring are born with a defect(or an unusual trait) but then there is another number like 1 out of a million that are born with the "unusual trait" it is for the benefit of the organism. So after a few million years a organism is born with a unusual trait that is for the benefit. If by some chance he doesnt die and he can reproduce quite often with alot of different mates, then there is a chance that some of his offsprings will have that "unusual trait". If everything goes well..Then the unusual trait will take over and become the dominent trait(which is also known as the survial of the fittest) A group breaks in half. The scenerio above happens....They have stayed apart for a few billion years, 20 billion years??. Now each groups experiances with the earth is going to vary greatly, from climate, contact with other organisms, its diet, surroundings.......Your not going to find every variation in the organism, and I really doubt if you compared their skeletons 20 billions years from when they broke apart they will look alike. I know geologist date the rocks back to 180 billion years old. So if their was organism around then, there is more than plenty of time for this stuff to happen. It might be hard to picture humans like this, but use it with something like a deer. A Elk and a moose look similar, but can they mate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX October 3, 2003 Share NOFX Member October 3, 2003 (edited) Why did evolution quit evolving in between stages. It took a entity...evoloved to monkey...evolved to man...then suddenly stopped only to continue mans evolution AND RESTART MONKEYS? who said it has stopped?? Evolution takes TIME. From what we know from human history, we have only been recording since 2000 BC. That is no time at all for any major evolution to take place. So therefore us or our great great great great great grandparents couldnt see evolution. Look how far we have came in the last 500 years ago. If someone was to ask you this question 500 years ago. You would say "I dont know anything, i do what the masta tells me" Why do you think man evovled back into monkey?? We broke apart from them millions and millions of years ago. People should understand "the real concept" of evolution instead of what they think evolution is. Edited October 3, 2003 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL October 3, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member October 3, 2003 When people think about evolution, I think they believe it was something like metamorphases.(which couldnt be farther from what some people believe). I forgot the ratio, but something like 1 out of 100,000 offspring are born with a defect(or an unusual trait) but then there is another number like 1 out of a million that are born with the "unusual trait" it is for the benefit of the organism. So after a few million years a organism is born with a unusual trait that is for the benefit. If by some chance he doesnt die and he can reproduce quite often with alot of different mates, then there is a chance that some of his offsprings will have that "unusual trait". If everything goes well..Then the unusual trait will take over and become the dominent trait(which is also known as the survial of the fittest) What you have described is "adaptation" not "evolution". Adaptation is changes within a species and typically, it isn't even a change but rather traits of the same species, say long-neck and short-neck giraffes (to make a made up example). Survival of the fittest would be proven in the fact that once all the leaves on the lower branches are eaten, the short-neck giraffes would die out. Also, the "new trait" you speak of is referred to as a mutation (a varying from the norm) and it is been proven that the majority of mutations are immediately fatal (i.e., a baby born with 2 heads) and that the rest are generally useless, such as being born with an extra finger on each hand (saw a guy with this once). Typically, there is no bone for the finger and it is just a hanging piece of flesh that can't actually be used, i.e., not fatal but not beneficial either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX October 3, 2003 Share NOFX Member October 3, 2003 (edited) ahh....ok well, say the 6 fingered fellow has a kid and his kid has 6 fingers, then his kid has sex with 40 girls and all their kids have 6 fingers. If we was a size of a few thousand, it could be quite possible that all our great great great grandchildren all have 6 fingers. Even though the 6 fingers wouldnt be benifical in anyway i can see, but this process sure helped out the short neck giraffes. Im sure there is many definitions for evolution, but the one we was taught in biology was "change over time" So i can see these short necked giraffes moving around the continent over millions of years, going to new climates etc, etc.... adapting to somethign else, then they adapt to another and another and another and another, then they start not looking like a giraffe. While their ancestors "the short neck giraffe" that never left home and his climate didnt change, he looks the same. Now that is why we still have apes for the people who dont understand why apes are still here if we evolved from them. Edited October 3, 2003 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy October 4, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member October 4, 2003 the statement i make of "why did evolution stop" is in reference to Evolution in real time. Why still are there low level evolved primates (monkeys) and high level (man) but there are no neandrethals in the zoo? So the question is pondered..."did evolution restart (we know them as monkeys) yet it continues (we know them as man)" Why are there such large gaps between monkey and man no talking monkeys. No monkeys who drive. No men who swing from trees. No men who eat bannanas like me....uh oh i may be that missing link Seems to me we should see inbetween LIVE specimens today and not just extremes. Auggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower October 5, 2003 Share Watchtower Member October 5, 2003 Neanderthals(the species) became extinct? Like many other thousands of species that once lived? There's only room on the planet and in our ecosystem for so many beings.. Oh wait! Playaa works with one! His name isn't Link is it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.