Evolution Questions

[Kuroikaze]

So.. Homo Erectis has been "in transition" for... 1.5 million years?

 

....with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.

 

By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.

 

 

http://nocompromisem...king-discovery/

 

Hate to break it too you, but this discovery was not the least bit troubling to evolutionary scientists, it, in fact, was exactly the sort of thing many had predicted they would find. This was not a modern human it just had a human like foot, thus scientists were happy to find evidence of when the foot first evolved into its modern form. I heard about this last year on a science pod cast I listen too and at no point did any of them seem to think this would negatively effect evolutionary theory.

 

Check this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

1.5 million years ago is smack in the middle of Homo Erectus' life span. The person who wrote the article you linked too was just a moron, and you sir are too lazy to do any fact checking, you just believe any idea that fits your preconceived notions.

[Ouroboros]

So.. Homo Erectis has been "in transition" for... 1.5 million years?

 

....with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.

 

By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.

 

What dating method did they use?

 

Wait!? According to Christian "scientists" all the dating methods are wrong anyway. So then 1.5 million year dating is nothing but 150 years. Right?

[Monfang]

But the point is. If there was a failed evolution where is the fossil?

 

http://www.vedicscie...n-debunked.html

 

From what you have been saying in this thread thus far, I am getting the impression that you think two monkeys have sex and out pops a human. That's not how it happens. Evolution happens little by little, extremely slowly. However, we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is definitely happening small-scale, and that it is most likely happening on a large scale as well.

 

And if you don't believe me, look at Staphylococcus aureus. That's right, Staph infection. Also, look at its derivatives: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. These evolutions have happened fairly recently due to the use of medications treating Staph infection.

No, I expect two monkeys to have sex and make a monkey with possible variations.

 

What you are describing is "vertical evolution" like dog breeds. A dog goes to a cold area and adapts a thicker coat adn shorter ears. A dog goes to hot area, gets bigger ears and a thinner coat. Is that evouliton? No. they are the same species, just a diffrent breed.

 

http://www.sciencene...e.php?DocID=222

 

According to most scientists, they aren't different species but breeds. You can also see this in nature with several different animals. Though we call them different species, (Like a wolf and a dog) they are still able to breed together. Maybe science needs to rework their system of calling different animals different species.

 

ps. I want to see proof of "Horizontal evolution" that is a dinosaur turning into a bird. Though you point to that chinese bird raptor, I have a few questions.

 

1. How did the dinosaur shift from cold blooded to warm and adjust for the high metabolic rate generating a high body temperature that comes with being a bird?

2. Why is it that "bird hipped" dinosaurs who contain a bodypart that is bird like.. don't look like birds. (I.E. Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus)

3. If Dinosaurs evolved into birds, why don't they use the same three fingers? Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.

4. Why do dinosaurs (even the ones with "feathers") have different lungs than birds?

5. It has been found that true birds lived at the same time as the "feathered" dinosaur. Explain how that is possible?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds

 

[Super FZL]

No, I expect two monkeys to have sex and make a monkey with possible variations.

 

What you are describing is "vertical evolution" like dog breeds. A dog goes to a cold area and adapts a thicker coat adn shorter ears. A dog goes to hot area, gets bigger ears and a thinner coat. Is that evouliton? No. they are the same species, just a diffrent breed.

 

http://www.sciencene...e.php?DocID=222

 

According to most scientists, they aren't different species but breeds. You can also see this in nature with several different animals. Though we call them different species, (Like a wolf and a dog) they are still able to breed together. Maybe science needs to rework their system of calling different animals different species.

 

ps. I want to see proof of "Horizontal evolution" that is a dinosaur turning into a bird. Though you point to that chinese bird raptor, I have a few questions.

 

1. How did the dinosaur shift from cold blooded to warm and adjust for the high metabolic rate generating a high body temperature that comes with being a bird?

2. Why is it that "bird hipped" dinosaurs who contain a bodypart that is bird like.. don't look like birds. (I.E. Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus)

3. If Dinosaurs evolved into birds, why don't they use the same three fingers? Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.

4. Why do dinosaurs (even the ones with "feathers") have different lungs than birds?

5. It has been found that true birds lived at the same time as the "feathered" dinosaur. Explain how that is possible?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds

 

"According to most scientists." Right, just like 9/10 dentists recommend Crest toothpaste. Your links are worthlessly slanted, if not irrelevant. (Answers in Genesis? Seriously, that's not an unbiased source. And the other link was pertaining to dog breeds. Anyone else craving red herring?)

 

Everything happens extremely gradually with evolution. And when things happen extremely gradually, almost anything can happen over a long amount of time.

[Guest I Love Dog]

That was a fun monster to fight in Dragon Quest.

 

And I'm sorry for being ignorant. I never took the time to really research those creatures.

 

Moving on. After hearing the story of Piltdown Man.. I call into question of anything found to try and prove Darwinism and Evolution.

 

http://www.clarku.ed...an_forgery.html

 

Oh wait.... they shouldn't be DARWINist..... because it wasn't his theory!

 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=66517

 

MF, you are part of a tiny group of people who still believe in creationism. It's a shame that your education has been so poor that it has resulted in your failure to understand even the basics of evolution and what's worse is that that same seat of learning has provided you with a closed mind that is incapable of even opening itself to possibilities other than those instilled in you by the religion that you follow.

 

Even the Catholic Church, that most conservative establishment agrees that evolution is how life progressed on this planet.

 

Please take yourself off to a creationist site and have fun with the rest of the deluded individuals that comprise of those who think like you. We don't have the time or the inclination to follow your idiotic ramblings on here.

 

Piss off. This is a site for ex-Christians, not idiot creationists.

 

[Super FZL]

MF, you are part of a tiny group of people who still believe in creationism.

 

To be fair, ILD, I think that's not exactly the case. Unfortunately, the believers in creationism are not a small group.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

To answer 1:How did the dinosaur shift from cold blooded to warm and adjust for the high metabolic rate generating a high body temperature that comes with being a bird?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1328175/?page=1

 

Note that this is a scholarly source, not a ranting opinion blog.

 

Much of your other points are not specific enough. Doesn't "look like" a bird? That isn't quantifiable.

[godlessgrrl]

The weird thing is that evolution isn't incompatible with theism. It's possible to accept evolution, yet still believe in a god - even the Christian one.

 

Evolution is, however, incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible. If you're a literalist, you may just be outta luck.

[HappyChef]

Here is my answer to debunk creationism.......Our thecnology in genetics is such that we cannot find the genetic "Adam".Over 300,000 DNA samples and paternal DNA is still down to 4 NON-RELATED ancestors.Granted 6 Billion people and another 20 years to go.I'm not placing any bets.

[Super FZL]

Here is my answer to debunk creationism.......Our thecnology in genetics is such that we cannot find the genetic "Adam".Over 300,000 DNA samples and paternal DNA is still down to 4 NON-RELATED ancestors.Granted 6 Billion people and another 20 years to go.I'm not placing any bets.

 

Excellent point, sir. Furthermore, it should be obvious that the different races (or perhaps I mean "breeds" as our original poster would suggest) cannot have come from Adam and Eve. That is, unless you subscribe to the "Tower of Babel scrambled the races" theory. (Which it didn't, no matter how hard you look into the text).

[Guest I Love Dog]

MF, you are part of a tiny group of people who still believe in creationism.

 

To be fair, ILD, I think that's not exactly the case. Unfortunately, the believers in creationism are not a small group.

 

Comparitively speaking, they are, as a percentage of the educated populations of the World, they are tiny. Belief in Creationism among educated people is mainly confined to USA and then mainly in certain areas. Roughly 3 times as many Americans believe in creationism as people in Europe and U.K., Australia and New Zealand.

 

Views on human evolution in various countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

 

The more secular countries have less believers in creationism, as you'd expect.

 

You'll see that USA is second only to Turkey in its belief in creationism. Not quite what you'd expect from the most powerful country on the planet! It's also the most Christian country, with more than 50% of people believing in demons, angels and the devil!

 

This is why we in Australia sent you Ken Ham. He just didn't fit in with our way of thinking!

[bird28]

I want you to explain why Australia has so many Marsupials... why did they all go there after the flood then? Evolution points out that they all evolved from a common ancestor into many cool forms!

 

1. How did the dinosaur shift from cold blooded to warm and adjust for the high metabolic rate generating a high body temperature that comes with being a bird?

Dinos might have been warm-blooded, I don't know how exactly warm bloodedness evolved, but it happened twice at least (mammals and birds)

 

 

2. Why is it that "bird hipped" dinosaurs who contain a bodypart that is bird like.. don't look like birds. (I.E. Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus)

features can evolve more than once, it's called convergent evolution

 

3. If Dinosaurs evolved into birds, why don't they use the same three fingers? Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.

I read up on this, it's at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

 

4. Why do dinosaurs (even the ones with "feathers") have different lungs than birds?

I looked this up too, same article as above, there is evidence these dinos also have airsac lungs.

 

5. It has been found that true birds lived at the same time as the "feathered" dinosaur. Explain how that is possible?

Um... this is the stupid "If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" argument. Some feathered dinos evolved into birds, another branch did not.

[Shyone]

That was a fun monster to fight in Dragon Quest.

 

And I'm sorry for being ignorant. I never took the time to really research those creatures.

 

Moving on. After hearing the story of Piltdown Man.. I call into question of anything found to try and prove Darwinism and Evolution.

 

http://www.clarku.ed...an_forgery.html

 

Oh wait.... they shouldn't be DARWINist..... because it wasn't his theory!

 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=66517

You are reading way too much creationist literature. Piltdown man was a forgery. Crude, but effective for a while and now it's so debunked even an ignorant person like you knows it's a forgery.

 

So you assume that every fossil found since is a forgery?

 

Hundreds upon hundreds of fossils found around the world, dated with radiometric dating (and other methods) have resulted in a family tree for many many species. Here's ours:

 

 

Looks more like a bush, doesn't it? Many species split, many became extinct. Those living now obviously descended from the lines that survived. Duh.

 

DNA has been used to form a family tree for living organisms to show how we are all related to one another. DNA can also be used to place a date on the time of separation of any two species (when the branch split). The results confirm the findings of the paleontologists.

 

That's two different branches of science, thousands of scientists; and I assume you think there is a conspiracy?

 

But an ancient book of myths is better than anything any scientist says?

 

Oh, you are doomed, boy, doomed to a life of abject and total impenetrable mental density.

[Jeremy Howard]

Okay, I will ask this question. In the theory of evolution, explain how both the male and female species evolve together? If evolution is the way I understand it, then in theory species shouldn't evolve together in both genders. Where in evolution does it explain compassion for others? If we are a species of survival of the fittest why do we help those in need? Where did our core instincts of right and wrong come from? If it came from "common sense" or man, who are we to say what is right and wrong? With billions of people on the earth we all have different aspects of right and wrong. Some believe child molestation is okay, along with rape and murder, and most do not.

[Monfang]

Actually, it's 5 sciences that can cover evolution and most of the scientist who are under them believe in creationism.

 

And what's with the ones at the bottom or the ones that appear out of nowhere, or the ones with no bar to show how long they existed?

[Ouroboros]

Actually, it's 5 sciences that can cover evolution and most of the scientist who are under them believe in creationism.

 

And what's with the ones at the bottom or the ones that appear out of nowhere, or the ones with no bar to show how long they existed?

Let's see, how long have the Christian conspiracy allowed scientists research evolution? Oh, not very long. They don't have all answers yet, but nothing in anything is pointing to any kind of magical creation.

 

Btw, the Genesis says that God commanded the oceans to bring about life. I guess you deny that too, since it's awfully close to what happened according to Evolution.

[Super FZL]

Okay, I will ask this question. In the theory of evolution, explain how both the male and female species evolve together? If evolution is the way I understand it, then in theory species shouldn't evolve together in both genders. Where in evolution does it explain compassion for others? If we are a species of survival of the fittest why do we help those in need? Where did our core instincts of right and wrong come from? If it came from "common sense" or man, who are we to say what is right and wrong? With billions of people on the earth we all have different aspects of right and wrong. Some believe child molestation is okay, along with rape and murder, and most do not.

Male and female organisms sometimes evolve simultaneously, but that need not always be the case. Sometimes a genetic mutation can result in what is known as a dominant allele (or a trait in a gene). When an organism with a dominant allele for a certain gene mates with an organism with a recessive allele for a certain gene, the children inherit the trait of the dominant allele. Repeat this millions of times and you can change whole species.

 

Survival of the fittest means that more well-equipped organisms will survive than the poorly-equipped. Survival of the fittest does not mean dog-eat-dog. Our core instincts or right and wrong come from our brains, which give us a sense of altruism. Altruism likely developed around the same time that we developed our sense of mortality (knowing we will eventually die).

 

Of course everyone has different aspects of right and wrong. There are different religious, cultural, social, hereditary, and environmental factors that can change a person's morality. Most people have some degree of altruism hard-wired into their brains. The sense of altruism gives us instincts that tell us not to hurt other people. However, sometimes, due to the aforementioned factors or psychiatric illness, people can loosen their morals so much that child molestation becomes okay in their eyes. (In my opinion, child molesters are very bad people).

 

 

Actually, it's 5 sciences that can cover evolution and most of the scientist who are under them believe in creationism.

 

And what's with the ones at the bottom or the ones that appear out of nowhere, or the ones with no bar to show how long they existed?

 

Five sciences? Care to list them? And most scientists believe in creationism, you say? Care to prove that? You cannot validate your claims, so don't bother to make them.

 

And the ones at the bottom did not appear out of nowhere, the graph simply lists the recent origins of humans. It does not list the entire evolution of life on Earth. That would not be possible at this point in time.

[Wertbag]

In the theory of evolution, explain how both the male and female species evolve together?

The likely answer would be hermaphrodites. Many exist such as snails and slugs, creatures which contain both male and female reproductive organs. If a creature surpressed either sexual organ it would be a single sex organism but still be able to mate with others of its kind.

Perhaps consider a crocodile. The female lays a batch of eggs and the only thing that determines whether they become male or female is the temperature. You have an entire generation with both sets of genes yet due to simple environmental differences end up with both sexes.

 

Where in evolution does it explain compassion for others?

Compassion can be seen in humans and animals. There are several possible reasons for its existance, from inbuilt empathy, to natural family inclinations, to hope of the same effort being given in return. It can be justified in many ways but of course would be impossible to state with certainly.

 

Where did our core instincts of right and wrong come from? ... who are we to say what is right and wrong?

There is no core instinct for right and wrong, hence why every society has differing laws. We do have empathy and love built in. We can understand what things would feel like to us and hence not wish that upon others, but even this can be over come by human teachings and laws. For example now days we would be horrified by a Coliseum where people were killed and feed to wild animals, yet back in the day this was considered acceptable. The change of societies perceptions is not genetic, its not evolution, its a study all of its own.

[Jeremy Howard]

I want to dwell on your reply real quick. I know there are creatures with both organs, that's now what i'm referring too and crocodiles still had to be evolved too. Somewhere along the line in evolution those that were not hermaphrodites or could reproduce both sets of genes still needed to evolve together in order to keep everything in line. Then at that how does evolution explain the complexity of the human body?

 

Let me ask this question as well. It's a popular question that if God created the universe who/what created God? Let me flip the script. In the Big Bang what was before it? Nothing. So how did we get what we have today from the Big Bang when there was nothing. You can not get a massive explosion from nothing. It is impossible.

 

Also, explain dark matter. It is what holds the universe together, yet Dark matter isn't proven to exist. It simply exists because it has too.

 

I can give you a short list of some scientists who believed in God or believed in a higher power. Before that I will give you these statistics. 40% of today's scientists believe in God and 15% are agnostic.

 

 

Nicholas Copernicus

Galileo Galilei

Issac Newton

Albert Einstein

Charles Darwin

 

 

[Monfang]

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

[Super FZL]

I can give you a short list of some scientists who believed in God or believed in a higher power. Before that I will give you these statistics. 40% of today's scientists believe in God and 15% are agnostic.

 

 

Nicholas Copernicus

Galileo Galilei

Issac Newton

Albert Einstein

Charles Darwin

 

 

 

 

Sources! That 40%/15% statistic needs sources!

 

Nicholas Copernicus was a Catholic cleric. I'll give you that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus

 

Galileo Galilei was called a heretic by the church because he believed the Earth revolved around the Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy

 

Issac Newton - Unorthodox version of Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

 

Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God. Whenever he used the term "God", he used it as a metaphor for the forces which dictate our universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views

 

Charles Darwin was an agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_religious_views

 

Hey, 1/5 ain't bad.

[Jeremy Howard]

It is 5/5, agnostic still believes in the possibility of God. None of them are atheist and Wikipedia is not the most credible source.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n22_v91/ai_19332942/

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Believing in god does not equate to denying evolution among scientists. The majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

The evolution of morals is different from biological evolution because it is largely a learned behavior like language. Humans are born with the ability to learn language (aside from those who are handicapped) but the language itself is learned not genetic. Self preservation and empathy are inborn but the specific morals are learned.

 

Morality is not the topic of this thread so I hope it doesn't get derailed.

[Jeremy Howard]

Believing in god does not equate to denying evolution among scientists. The majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

The evolution of morals is different from biological evolution because it is largely a learned behavior like language. Humans are born with the ability to learn language (aside from those who are handicapped) but the language itself is learned not genetic. Self preservation and empathy are inborn but the specific morals are learned.

 

Morality is not the topic of this thread so I hope it doesn't get derailed.

 

Provide a source that the majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

 

Also, I would like the point out that the argument of saying humans having similar dna to monkey's proves evolution is true is completely false. We share similar DNA to everything. Charles Sagan himself said we share DNA with a tree. Humans share similarities with everything on this earth.

[Super FZL]

It is 5/5, agnostic still believes in the possibility of God. None of them are atheist and Wikipedia is not the most credible source.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n22_v91/ai_19332942/

 

Well, first of all, let me state that I am an agnostic. If God truly does exist, I apologize for leaving him, plain and simple. However, I highly doubt he exists.

 

That article is definitely clear in its statements. I could debate its reliability, but I probably shouldn't because I am, after all, using Wikipedia. However, my Wikipedia articles are well-cited and well-moderated, so not just anyone will edit it. Edits on that site have to run through a panel on certain subjects. Crucial scientists make for highly moderated articles.

 

And, no matter how you color it, it is not 5/5. You said, "I can give you a short list of some scientists who believed in God or believed in a higher power." However, I have shown, with sources, that at least two of them were agnostic, and the other two were Christians of a totally different brand, more similar to deism than anything else. At best, you got 3/5, and in my state, that's a failing grade.