Re: Evolution
 

Right or wrong is not a knowledge. It is a widely relative and cultural thing. The concept of right or wrong is different between cultures and nations, you just impose your vision of "right" upon others. Values, for example, are also relative to societies.

The Human brain might be complex, but many other species are extremely complex too, and superior to us in many ways while we beat them in others. Each species focused on a specific feature to ensure their survival, and because we were completely pointless physically, we had to use tools and brains to survive, while other species focused on other features.

Re: Evolution
 

:agreed

to sum up my feelings, God started it.....evolution does exist, but we didnt evolve from another species

Re: Evolution
 

Then why did God make you look so much like a monkey?

Re: Evolution
 

Well, chimpanzes and human share about 97% of the same DNA, on average*, and I'm not sure about horses and zebras--they are part of the same genus.

XC, evolution is a fact. You can study it, document it, test it. It's called "The Theory of Evolution" because it's a scientific premise. Like the Theory of Gravity, or the Theory of Relativity. Many people mistake this for it being "theoretical." It doesn't explain everything, of course, since it's still a young science. With animals which have very long life-spans, it is difficult to study.

*some say it's as high as 99%, and I've read others putting it at 95%

In his own image...

Re: Evolution
 

I know evolution is a fact. I agree with it.

It is also a fact that the earth is over 5 billion years old. You cannot prove the earth is 20,000 years old, however you can prove with technology that the earth is 5 billion years old.

Re: Evolution
 

by what? Carbon dating?? that has been proven inaccurate


and im not saying the earth cant be more than 20,000 years old, or even millions.....i could be wrong, but this is what i believe.....

Re: Evolution
 

X-C, you should recognize this post, as I just figured out who you are, I posted this a long time ago, still relevant;

Ok, I have a very difficult time understanding why people put their stock in evolutionary relationships. Before you can truely discuss the evolutionary relationships, it must first be explained, it it's MOST litteral terms, as people try to define evolution in more than one meaning. Evolution actually has severl different things attached to it, at least two different definitions, both of which must be seperated and stated as they are in order to make any sense what-so-ever (that is quite possibly the longest sentence ever, so I apologize for any damage I'm causing to your eyes). Allow me to explain what I'm talking about. (please do not skip reading this section even if you think you already know, it's important to any further discussion I make)

The basis of evolution is founded in Natural Selection, Darwin's theory. Darwin's threory was that within each species, there is a certain degree of genetic variation, causing diversity in that given population. This is through genetic mutation, variation in hereditary relationships, and obvious things like that. Now, this causes what is widely know as Micro-evolution, the changing of a species over time. This plays on the theory of divergance, that animals grow increasingly different over time, physiologically, as a direct result of the increasing differences in their genes. A species would there-by, diverge so much from it's other relatives that it would become a seperate ecological race, and eventually over time, an entirely new species. The natural selection theory is obvious: the creature which develops the characteristic that best suits it's environment is more likely to survive in order to get around to reproducing. A logical concept if you think about it. This is from Darwin's finches (after which the theory was developed). The finches in the Galopagos (spelling is most definately not my thing) developed varying styles of beaks, broad, long, narrow, etc. It's was discovered that each finch's beak matched the food that was most abundant in that area. A long, slinder beak allows a bird to more effectively eat insects abundant in one area, while it is not suitable for breaking nuts, which are abundant in another. Likewise, the powerful broad beak that is suited for breaking the nuts in that area, is unwealdy, and would not do well at catching instects, in addition to the fact that the broad beak requires more energy to wield, and they would have to eat MORE insects in any case, than a slender beaked bird, but the slender beaked bird can much more easily catch them. Within the ranges of both species of finches, their is a varying amount of beak sizes. In the slender beaks, some are longer, some are shorter, some are wider, some are narrower. Same with the broad beaked birds. As case in Natural Selection, the birds within that range, that have the narrower beaks (in the case of the slender beaked finches) and the broader beaks (in the case of the broad beaked finches) will more effectively gather food, therefore, they would survive to mate. That is Natural Selection; Micro-evolution. Micro-evolution, is not disputed by many Christian scientists, and is not the controversial issue, the problem comes when people try to use natural selection and magnify it to extraordinary proportions; the theory of Macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is the controversial form of evolution. This is a species drastically changing into different species (gatanotia-asralopithicus-humans, ambliosetous-basilisarus-whale, amino acid-protein-cell-person, stuff like that). Where as science can show the development of characteristics through the theories of natural selection, it has not, and, infact, cannot prove the formation of entirely new structures! I'll take one of the more widely known relationships of this as an example. An antient creature known as ambliosetus, is thought to be the whales ancestor, and the first step of mammals returning to the sea to become whales.

Ambliosetus was a semi-aquatic creature (anphibious mammal) who was similar in design to a crocodille, with features of an otter, and mammalian in design. Ambliosetus had four legs and was built generally like a croc, but it's tail was shorter, thinner, and was built similar to how you would see an otter's tail. It was a truely remarkable work of art, physiologically speaking of course. It is theorized to have swam like an otter, with the up and down motion of the body like an otter (or a whale) instead of the side to side motion of a croc. Now is where it gets tricky. Scientists theorize that the creature developed several features as it "evolved". Most notibly, as I already stated, the Ambliosetus had a narrow tail like an otter. Scientists state that the tail eventually became a powerful fluke (the { shape a whale has). This is NOT supported by natural selection at all. Within NO means is a fluke part of the genetic variations within a species, nor is any stage up to a fluke. They theorize based on trying to make logic of this MUST be this, cause that's just how it is. That in itself is rediculous. Let's head another step down the "evolutionary chain". Basilisaurus was another supposed "evolutionary step" to a whale. After Ambliosetus, this massive creature had a fluke, which just magically sprouted overnight. This creature, had massive, deadly teath, which it could use to tear through the flesh of any prehistoric prey. Also, this creature still had no blow-hole. A whale, both has a blow-hole, and it has brush-like "teath" which stream vast amounts of krill. NO amount of genetic variation causes something to magically have a tooth brush for it's tooth, nor does any amount of variation cause us to grow a hole in our back that we can breathe through. Natural Selection simply isn't an option here either. This shows how rediculous believing in macro-evolution can be, but just to be sure, lets analyze something a little closer to home, the human evolutionary path . . . .

The earliest human "ancestors" are said to be prehistoric monkeys (yes Cataphract, I mean MONKEYS, the little poop throwing thing with a tail) like Gatanotia. Over time, supposedly, these monkeys gradually became apes (the difference in case you don't know, is that monkeys are smaller, and have tails, dwelling in the trees, they use it for balace and additional gripping power, while apes do not have tails, and have strong arms as a compensation, and many do not live in trees, though some do). That in itself is rather out there isn't it? A little monkey dude just decided to trade in it's tail (which shouldn't happen in and of itself, it has no reason to give up it's tail, such a lose isn't genetically advantageous anyway) and gain powerful fore arms, and grow larger . . . never any expaination of why they did this, how it at all benefitted them, and why modern monkeys are still monkeys if it was really so advantageous to be an ape, but that's just the way it is. The first ape with "human-like" features was the Astalopithicus. This creature was basically an ape that could supposedly walk upright. No additional brain size, so it isn't becoming like us there, no special skeletal changes in the skull our anything, it's just standing up now for the fun of it. Eventually, this creature supposedly "magically" morphed into a creature known as crowmagnon . . . the modern man . . . . This happened at the bigining of the ice age . . . so where the fric did our fur go?! How would that be at all helpful to us to loose our fur during a friggin' ice age?! (how the crap is it advantageous at all?) So now, crowmagnon not only has to go find himself food, now he must go find some clothes so he doesn't freeze his prehistoric arse off . . . seems to be quite an inefficient play on nature's part . . . could it have screwed up?

Natural Selection, while plausable in a small scale, of a species changing over time, but it does not AT ALL explain the functions of growing new body structures, illogical changes that are apparantly harmful to the species, and just all out proposterous. Now I don't want anyone trying to use the fact that some humans have tails, that is a genetic mutation, not a window our past. As I already said, apes don't have tails anyway. But genetic mutations does remind me to tell you, genetic mutations isn't the cause of Macro-evolution either. As with any mutation (which are usually harmful and cancerous anyway) the mutation is simply a mistake while copying genes and is recessive. Even if the creature did live to mate, the mutation is "diluded" through time, and is usually erased completely even by the next generation. The only way for a mutation like that to carry on is if the matant's mate somehow had the same mutation, and then the next generation's mate had that mutation, so on and so on, which is rather stupid to try to proove something like that, as well as anyone trying to proove that way by insest, which is also stupid since creatures that closely related often preoduce defects, killing the offspring, and can cause infertility in the next generation anyway.

As you can see, I don't put any stock in Macro-evolution. If you'd like to proove me wrong, then come on in and try it out.

Steakboy
- Resident N00b at Large . . . . -

Re: Evolution
 

When you are talking about 500 million years and twenty thousand millions years, it is not that inaccurate.

Re: Evolution
 

Features with no uses partially disappear because they become under develloped and unecessary. For example, there are vestiges of tails on our backs, but it does not grow at all because we don't need it. The same thing applies to our digestive system, were some features disappeared because our diet changed. As for fur, well keep in mind the glaciers did not cover the surface of the globe, and that while it was colder, it was not freezing all year long. Clothes did not make fur necessary.

Re: Evolution
 

Survival of the fittest means that creatures more adapt to their enviroment can have more offspring. This does not state that all evolutionary changes must be usefull. Some changes cause no harm and can be weaved into the species easily. Even us 'perfect' humans have many properties that do not grant us any edge above our others. Like, why do men have nipples? Or why do we have tailbones? If we evolved from monkeys with tails, some monkeys could have been placed outside their 'natural enviroment'. Perhaps caused by an ice-age, where all the trees are gone. Standing upright would give you a better view of your surroundings and the ability to run faster. A tail would become redundant, since there is no need for climbing.

In marco evolution there are no big changes, but little changes over long periods of time. Very well, I cannot explain the blow-hole thing, but the alternative to macro-evolution is much, much more unlikely.