jaxon

man oh man just take a sip of 100% pure orange juice... The inner light the one and only is the only thing that could have created that taste. A fool can count the apples on a tree but God can tell you how many apples are in a seed. The problem with the universal force is to many people try and define it by what they know. It is way beyond our little human mind to even come close to what a creator could be.
theory of evolution - looks good on paper but if I cmoe form a mkenoy tehn waht is a fknicug mnoeky?

kpeeze

edit - kulotsalot

No smart ass replies

Jimi

You need to brush up on the rules of this forum, first of all, second, you can't just say we're from monkeys, and then give no reason. There are more clues disproving evolution from primate to man. We have 46 chromosomes, they have 48. There is no distinctive link in evolutionary fossils. Not one bit of evidence shows that we came from monkeys.

I believe in evolution to an extent, but not that we came from single-celled organisms, or even that we came from monkeys.

kpeeze

1. What rules of the forum did I violate? It is common knowledge that humans derive from ape backgrounds. Just like the sky is blue, I don't need to back it up any more than that. Any reading of biology and history will show this.

2. How does the fact that we have 46 chromosomes and monkeys have 48 show anyhing that would disprove the evolution of primates to man? For one, features that aren't used are shed over time through evolution. Look at snakes whose ancestors had legs, but these have gradually been eliminated. The key is our genetic information is almost identical with unique characteristics that tie both monkeys and humans to a similar ancestor.

3. No fossil records? What about Lucy, and the numerous other fossil evidence of transitional beings between our primate backgrounds and our current human state.

4. DNA, fossils, etc. I think this is sufficient evidence. What evidence do you have contradictory? What Joel Osteen tells you on Sunday afternoon, or some book written by humans with no understanding of biological history is not sufficient evidence to refute.

It's science deal with it.

Jimi

You don't realize you're talking to a biologist. I'm not coming from what anyone tells me on Sunday... in fact, I'm not even in church on Easter.

It's common theory that we come from monkeys, not common knowledge, you're mistaking theory and proof. Being a biologist, I am more prone to believing what evidence I perceive, rather than believing the common response without thouroughly investigating. History has nothing to do with evidence of man from primate. History is a documentation of what man has written or told while man has existed.

First of all, a lot of what "we know" about Lucy was based on what "we know" about other Australopithecus afarensis. Lucy was a homonid, but Lucy proving man from ape is more theory. Such fossils are single specimens and very poorly evident. Lucy is made up of fragments, as are most fossils that are "proof" of evolution from ape to man.

Let's look at Lucy.



This is a poor representation of what may or may not even be bipedal. They claim that it was bipedal because of the femur, but if you look at the femur of this particular representation, it looks weak, and unable to hold the rest of the body, which even in this picture the uneven ratio is quite evident. This is your proof?

As far as skull structure goes in Australopithecus, they have smaller head than apes, longer jaws, flattened bicuspids, smaller foreheads.... and all this was to have taken place from one species to another? Evolution doesn't work that way. A single genetic mutation causes one single change, not 15 changes at once. Even if, by some anomoly, a specimen did deviate so far from the others of its species, the chances of reproduction are astronomical if any. Besides the fact that genetic mutations tend to render a specimen sterile, others of a primate species would see this specimen as an outcast, and not want anything to do with it.




These last two pictures represent the known specimens of Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus boisei. As similar as they look, these are the last to "links" that "prove" evolution from Australopithecus to Homo.

People don't take into account time lines when dealing with evolution. They think that it is possible for these things to change drastically over a short period of time, and it's just not possible. Take kingsnakes for example. There are obvious genetic mutations inside of the Lampropeltis species, and this is shown through behavior, and coloration. Even inside of sub-species you'll find locality anomolies. Take Lampropeltis mexicana greeri...


And then Lampropeltis mexicana thayeri



And then Lampropeltis mexicana mexicana



They are all obviously related, and are all obviously different, but the difference isn't that the greeri have more teeth, and a broader head, and a longer face, and a longer tail, and a larger brain. The only difference is their coloration. That is one anomoly that effected these species in their areas over thousands of years.

The reason I brought up snakes is also a transitional segway, so I could talk about evidence of relation to lizards.

The ONLY reason snakes and lizards can even be considered near-related is a pelvic girdle that some snakes have, and the fact that a "legless" lizard exists. However, when you look at it, the "legless" lizard, in fact, has legs, and a pelvic girdle could be for a number of reasons. Scientists don't even "know" whether lizards would have come from snakes, or vice-versa.

So, in the end, if you're going to debate evolution, be prepared to back up your statements accordingly, and not just say, "Read biology", or whatever.

Let me add something here...

This is a Mountain Gorilla skull:


This is an Orangutan skull:


And this is a human skull:


Now, these are other different species of mammals...

This is a dog skull:


This is a seal skull:


And this is a Hyena skull:


My point is, just because animals share certain characteristics doesn't mean that they came from the same womb. None of these mammals are even related.

Jimi

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

I didn't mean to kill this thread. Anyone have anything to add?

fox&hound

I don't know much about biology but i'm sure that this thread won't die easy.

I believe that religion is required in society, at least until we as a species understand what it is we are here for.

No i'm not religious

So, i think that religions that are established should make efforts to "evolve" and keep the people who follow them informed of the alternatives.

bocasbeachbum

Any christian religion today is based upon the bible in some manner. What everyone needs to realize is that most of the gospels were written 150 to 170 years after jesus died, so most of what is in there has to be made up or just word of mouth. Most of the rest of the bible was was taken from street corner preachers and letters and things hundreds of years after jesus died. The counsel of nicea in 325 AD compiled what began as the present day bible. They thew out hundreds of pieces of information and left what they wanted. Religion has nothing to do with what GOD of jesus said or wanted. It is what man wanted at the time and most of that was to control people.
There is a GOD but he is somewhere inside each of us. That is what RELIGION should be.

adam bomb

I beileve that the only way to get to Heaven is to admit your a sinnerr and trust Jesus. If we could do it by just iobeying the 10 commandemnts then he died in vein we will get to Heaven not by our works but by his grace and mercy. So we must trust in his name and have faith he will get us through all hardships.

kpeeze

So let me ask you then: do you think someone who realizes they aren't perfect (so what you would call a sinner), doesn't believe that Jesus was anything more than a good person when he was alive, but lives a good life as a good person, being completely selfless in his actions would not go to heaven?

Do you believe that god is so vain that he will only let us into heaven if we worship him?

Do you believe that someone who "admit[s] your [sic] a sinnerr [sic] and trust[s] jesus" but is extremely flawed and has done horrific acts will get into heaven over a non-believer who has led a perfectly giving and good life helping many?

If you say yes to any of these questions then that is not a god I want to believe in, fuck that god. If you think god would welcome someone who has led a good life and been selfless and helped people, but just doesn't believe in a god then I think if there is a god (which I don't believe) then he would be fine solely with my being a good person while I am here on earth.

lurker22

Let me get this straight?! So, because the theory has a small missing connection but everthing genetically matches up, but a small hole in the physical evidence. very small.. "You say well i can't accept that as fact." " It doesn't make sense"

I can understand that. I understand how you can say still prove it. What I cannot fathom is how you can logically say that's impossible, and LOGICALLY believe (or imagine) a magical super being with a long beard is an obvious answer to what created us.. And his ego is so big that you must worship him everyday or at least on sundays. and don't even get me started about his so called son..

madskillz

that's because you don't get it. Getting into heaven and stayin out of hell isn't about being good. it's about believing that we are far from perfect, far from what He wanted for us. and not just saying we do, but believing and admitting that we could never be the "good" people he wants us to be. to believe that sin is so vile, and so evil that the price of it is blood, is life itself. but never fear cuz... well jesus is here. so yes even if we light some mutha on fire (Like so ) but realize the vileness, the evil of what we are, and turn from all the "bad" no the "evil" in us (as best we can) and accept jesus, then our price is paid.

just know that there is always a consiquence to actions good or bad. when a person decides to be a believer, they go to heaven yes, but god has more then that, he rewards our sacrifices. and he does that on earth sometimes, but more importantly, in heaven. the more we do in his name (and with his power) the more we get and vice versa. so a babykiller might be a hobo in heaven, but still in heaven. that's not the point, God knows fakers, and people who are truely evil can't be in heaven. he won't give them a heart that can truely repent.

Yet for those of us who are to impatient to wait till we die (understandably so, hell i'm 19), he cares for us while we're here. that doesn't mean makes sure you live forever, it does mean that while your alive, whatever happens to you, you have peace. peace with the world and life. few people know what that's like, especially when you have $600 dollars and know you have $1000 in bills, due in a week. but that is his greatest gift, perfect, serene peace. why stress, why fret, God's gonna take care of things. i am a believer not just because i read anything, or some guy told me this, but because i tested it, i tried it out. and God has taken care of me. even when i'm not perfect or go against him like now (in my life in general, not but doing this), there are some benifits i get taken away from me, but not the things i need.

i wrote long enough.... God Bless

p.s. Please dear God, don't let me have said anything out of place or wrong. Lord don't let a single word i say or write mislead anyone. i know i shoulda asked before i wrote this... but help me to bring understanding to you, instead of more confusion.