I'm not into the gay thing.

Thanks for that Swamp Fox. I still cannot figure out the "gay connection?" Tin Can please enlighten.

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:
Thanks for that Swamp Fox. I still cannot figure out the "gay connection?" Tin Can please enlighten.

I found the article to be very interesting. I heard about the Texas discoveries. Probably from the Discovery Channel. But, thanks for sharing the link. I signed up for it myself after reading that article.

Take yer bottle and-

quote]Hominid[/quote]

HOMOnid.

had to draw ya a map...

Sorry, am a citizen of an ex-colony recently partially civilised, me that is ! The ex-colony is rapidly losing it's veneer of civility.

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:
Sorry, am a citizen of an ex-colony recently partially civilised, me that is ! The ex-colony is rapidly losing it's veneer of civility.

-all in fun my friend

And taken as such.

I find all of this evolution prattle quite amusing... There are only two possibilities if one believes in evolution: that two non-humans gave birth to a human, or a non-human walked behind a tree or other object, and when it came out the other side it was human.

3.2 million year old foot bone...

Almost as believable as woman being made from a rib bone of man

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
I find all of this evolution prattle quite amusing... There are only two possibilities if one believes in evolution: that two non-humans gave birth to a human, or a non-human walked behind a tree or other object, and when it came out the other side it was human.

3.2 million year old foot bone...

Try slowing that process down.
None of us have any comprehension how slow a million or even 100,000 years passes.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
I find all of this evolution prattle quite amusing... There are only two possibilities if one believes in evolution: that two non-humans gave birth to a human, or a non-human walked behind a tree or other object, and when it came out the other side it was human.

3.2 million year old foot bone...

So, the animated mud theory is more plausible sounding to you is it?

Where did god come from then, it's no good saying he was always there, that's what we non-flat earthists say about constituent energy that makes up the universe.

Ghubert, if you want to believe you are sprung from some ape, go ahead. But I challenge you to go out and hold a conversation with one of them sometime... or watch them pick and eat fleas off one another. You think they are kinfolk? You are welcome to your own sad thoughts...

I would invite you to take a look at Darwin's theory of evolution in light of the common frog... why does it have more chromosome pairs than humans do? And why is it that if you try to breed a lion with a tiger, the result is sterile? Or a horse to a donkey? This type of cross-breeding is exactly how the proponents of evolution suggest humans "evolved". Horse puckey, to put it lightly!

No, Ghubert, I know exactly where I (and the rest of the human race) came from, and it wasn't from copulation by a couple of monkeys.

It would be nice if people took a closer look at some of the evidence that has been found over the past 20 years or so.

First off, it has been proven that evolution is a continueing process. It has also been proven that some species evolved from a common/base species, that because of varying habitat differences, developed along different routes, dogs/bears/seals. All related, yet all different.

One thing that has become evident over the past few years, is that while humans and apes, not monkeys may have had a common ancestor, it is possible that ancestor was actually human and not ape. Fossils are being found that are pushing the origins of humans farther and farther back.

It is possible, that at some point, the line that became apes split away from the line that developed into humans, and while humans continued/contiue to this day to evolve, the other line stopped evolving and became apes.

CHC, I typically respect your posts, save the occasional use of what I would call "blue verbiage." In this case I will respectfully request to disagree. I have a somewhat differing opinion from yours as to what the word "evolve" is defined as.

I have listened to Garner Ted Armstrong and men of his ilk to the point of nausea. One only has to study the theory of evolution slightly to find its flaws... and the definition of 'theory" is something that cannot be proven.

I would respectfully suggest that only recently has it been confirmed that all humans decended from the same female DNA. Not male, but female. I would suggest that female had a name, a rather well known name, and she did not traverse the earth with her knuckles on the ground....

The idea that fish crawled out onto rocks over and over for millions of years and somehow gills became lungs, and the scraping of fins against the rocks brought about feathers, to the point one day a bird crawled out of the water onto the rocks and flew away is the stuff of dreams brought on by opiates and absinthe.

quote:

And why is it that if you try to breed a lion with a tiger, the result is sterile? Or a horse to a donkey? This type of cross-breeding is exactly how the proponents of evolution suggest humans "evolved". Horse puckey, to put it lightly!

NO, that's not what Darwin proposed, read if for yourself:
http://www.literature.org/auth...e-origin-of-species/

quote:

Ghubert, if you want to believe you are sprung from some ape, go ahead

No, we did not evolve from Apes, we evolved from Australopithecus.

quote:

and the definition of 'theory" is something that cannot be proven.

NO.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon
A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Ghubert, if you want to believe you are sprung from some ape, go ahead. But I challenge you to go out and hold a conversation with one of them sometime... or watch them pick and eat fleas off one another. You think they are kinfolk? You are welcome to your own sad thoughts...

I would invite you to take a look at Darwin's theory of evolution in light of the common frog... why does it have more chromosome pairs than humans do? And why is it that if you try to breed a lion with a tiger, the result is sterile? Or a horse to a donkey? This type of cross-breeding is exactly how the proponents of evolution suggest humans "evolved". Horse puckey, to put it lightly!

No, Ghubert, I know exactly where I (and the rest of the human race) came from, and it wasn't from copulation by a couple of monkeys.

AS has covered the salient points but permit me the indulgence of a favour for a moment.

You have ignored my question as to ultimate origin, fine.

You have a misconceived view of Darwin's theory, the link AS provided presents the proper picture but basically evolution is not as a result of cross breeding but of variance within a species and the effect that variance has on the organism's interaction with his environment. This is why individuals of the same species, ie interbreedably fertile, can show so much physical variance according to geography. Over millennia these selected for variances eventually add up to a new species. According to my caste of mind, it's simple, understandable and supported by evidence.

It therefore follows that it would be no good trying to watch the superbowl with a monkey as he's adapted to eat bananas and you've adapted to do other things entirely.

I'm sure you appreciate that the explanation of how evolution is actually supposed to work above renders the questions in your last paragraph invalid except for the one about the frog.

Now, it's good that you mentioned frogs.

Frogs are very handy animals for embryologists, or rather a particular frog, I'll call him Strangefoot, who is part of the model genomics project, ie the project to completely map the genomes of various organism.

Now Strangefoot's predecessor in this caper, also called Strangefoot had four pairs of each chromosome, which makes it a bit of a pain in the ass to manipulate on the chromosomal level but made up for it by laying large, easily hormone induced, eggs. StrangefootII , as we'll now call him, had smaller eggs but with only two copies of each chromosome and being easier to keep in captivity won over the day.

He's taught us a lot about proto-embryonic development and his place will be feted amongst scientists for a long while to come.

Funny thing is he has about the same number of genes as humans, 20,000 vs 23,000, and of those just under 2000 are very similar to ones that in humans are associated with disease. It appears that we are closer to humble Strangefoot than would perhaps meet the eye.


A further indulgence if I may and in response to something you said in reply to CHC, viz:

quote:

I would respectfully suggest that only recently has it been confirmed that all humans decended from the same female DNA. Not male, but female. I would suggest that female had a name, a rather well known name, and she did not traverse the earth with her knuckles on the ground....

You appear to be talking about mitochondrial DNA, more specifically the idea of a "Mitochondrial Eve".

I'm sure you appreciate that the great advantage of using mitochondiral DNA in population genetics is that as mDNA is only ever passed from matrilineally and therefore not subject to recombination it is conserved through the female line. this line extends all the way back to a "Mitochondrial Eve" ( we think about 200,000 years ago somewhere in east Africa) being the only woman whose unbroken mDNA can be traced back from today.

Ie, she is our common ancestor, we are all descended from her.

Now what's really interesting is that from the genetic record, Adam never actually met Eve.

quote:

The idea that fish crawled out onto rocks over and over for millions of years and somehow gills became lungs, and the scraping of fins against the rocks brought about feathers, to the point one day a bird crawled out of the water onto the rocks and flew away is the stuff of dreams brought on by opiates and absinthe.

Okay, then to look at your statement from another perspective, using the frog or toad, with most species in these twi groups, the young are hatched from eggs, with tails, no limbs and gills and live in water. Yet they EVOLVE legs/arms/lungs/lose their tails and live on land.

Those species EVOLVED that way and have survived longer than humans have been on the planet. Do you honestly believe that NO other species on this planet might not have went thru a similar process, with the exception, that once they developed beyond a certain stage, habitat/climatic conditions forced them to forego certain stage if the process, such as tne differences between placental mammals versu the egg laying mammals?

quote:

Do you honestly believe that NO other species on this planet might not have went thru a similar process, with the exception, that once they developed beyond a certain stage, habitat/climatic conditions forced them to forego certain stage if the process, such as tne differences between placental mammals versu the egg laying mammals?

Yes. They are amphibians, not mammals. And they are still doing exactly what their original design had them do... If not, then frogs would be laying eggs on dry land and the
"froglets" would be born with lungs and no tail. Or... maybe the froglets would be born live! If this earth is millions of years old (ha ha...), why have some species "evolved" and others have not?

My belief is that our Creator did certain things in a direct attempt to mislead those of us willing to allow ourselves to be misled... and at the risk of taking this thread where it should not go, I would direct you to II Thess. 2:12, assuming you believe the Bible to be inspired... in short, that passage says that if one is inclined to believe something in error, and wishes to badly enough, God will send a delusion to help that belief.

I will leave this thread, but in doing so I would offer this: there are certain things in this life none of us understand: how seeds reproduce the fruit they came from, how baby birds learn to fly, how dolphins communicate, etc. I hesitate to believe you actually think all that is pure happenstance... How is it that a fawn is born with absolutely no scent for the first few weeks, and why do you think that is? Do you think a female turkey "learned" how to hide herself and her nest so perfectly that the potential for finding one is almost non-existent? How did bees "evolve" to the point of being able to communicate?

I could go on and on, but I will not. It would be a waste of time. I think you get my point.

quote:

And they are still doing exactly what their original design had them do... If not, then frogs would be laying eggs on dry land and the
"froglets" would be born with lungs and no tail. Or... maybe the froglets would be born live! If this earth is millions of years old (ha ha...), why have some species "evolved" and others have not?

You are assuming to know all the answers.
They are NOT known....yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Do you honestly believe that NO other species on this planet might not have went thru a similar process, with the exception, that once they developed beyond a certain stage, habitat/climatic conditions forced them to forego certain stage if the process, such as tne differences between placental mammals versu the egg laying mammals?

Yes. They are amphibians, not mammals. And they are still doing exactly what their original design had them do... If not, then frogs would be laying eggs on dry land and the
"froglets" would be born with lungs and no tail. Or... maybe the froglets would be born live! If this earth is millions of years old (ha ha...), why have some species "evolved" and others have not?

My belief is that our Creator did certain things in a direct attempt to mislead those of us willing to allow ourselves to be misled... and at the risk of taking this thread where it should not go, I would direct you to II Thess. 2:12, assuming you believe the Bible to be inspired... in short, that passage says that if one is inclined to believe something in error, and wishes to badly enough, God will send a delusion to help that belief.

I will leave this thread, but in doing so I would offer this: there are certain things in this life none of us understand: how seeds reproduce the fruit they came from, how baby birds learn to fly, how dolphins communicate, etc. I hesitate to believe you actually think all that is pure happenstance... How is it that a fawn is born with absolutely no scent for the first few weeks, and why do you think that is? Do you think a female turkey "learned" how to hide herself and her nest so perfectly that the potential for finding one is almost non-existent? How did bees "evolve" to the point of being able to communicate?

I could go on and on, but I will not. It would be a waste of time. I think you get my point.

Sir you asked me a question and I did my best to respond, you now appear to have moved on to some other contentions entirely...

It's impossible to have a discussion in those circumstances surely?

Sorry, Ghubert, I was responding to CHC...

I think we shall just agree to disagree. I see that you use the terms " evolve" and "adapt" almost interchangeably, and to me they are quite different... I also believe that there is a pattern to this earth and what happens in and on it is all because of that pattern. There are too many that attribute all this to happenstance, with attribution of all the order as nothing but pure luck. I cannot accept that.

I will bow out of this; I will suggest that I may be too convicted to be able to listen... I just feel that when scientists begin to explain science with the Bible, instead of trying to disprove it, we will be much further ahead.

My best to you, and I mean that...

quote:

I just feel that when scientists begin to explain science with the Bible, instead of trying to disprove it, we will be much further ahead.

Scientific inquiry neither try to prove, nor disprove the Bible. In this indevor we seek only the truth, and follow were it may take us. To the open minded seeker of truth, this will lead you away from the biblical creation story.

quote:

And they are still doing exactly what their original design had them do... If not, then frogs would be laying eggs on dry land and the
"froglets" would be born with lungs and no tail. Or... maybe the froglets would be born live! If this earth is millions of years old (ha ha...), why have some species "evolved" and others have not?

Just exactly how do you know that frogs/toads were not "Created" perfectly on the first attempt? Other than minor modifacations/adaptations to specialized habitats frogs/toads have noi changed that much, neither have crocodialians or sharks or garfish.

Close minded individuals in a way have stopped evolving in their own right. With many of them it seems to be an all or nothing situation, or as in this statement

quote:

why have some species "evolved" and others have not?

[/QUOTE].

Evolution works differently for each species, always has, always will. Some pecies continue to evolve/adapt and change to exist in their environment, some species have reached the highest level of evolvement/adaptation they can achieve, and some species evolved/adapted to such a highly specialized state that when condition changed, they died out/became extinct.

CHC, I said I would leave, but you prompt another response...

First of all, note the quotations around the word "evolve"... there is a reason; figure it out.

Secondly, I note that you conveniently chose to ignore my questions. I would ask only that you ponder them, then attempt an at least somewhat logical resonse. There is only one, as I see it.

The answer is inherently clear, but only if one studies a bit. Everything that "evolution" and I mean that, postulates carries an inherent flaw that can easily be refuted. Believe what you will, it doesn't change the answer. Maybe it will when two gorillas give birth to a smooth-skinned baby, or two humans give birth to a baby ape. Until then, and I will await its occurrence, you guys are left to your own dissuasion. Some of us already acknowledge the answer...


And I am done... again, and finally. I will read but not respond again, as it is a waste of my time.

Your whole statement is flawed. I have embraced the creationism concept and found it flawed, that is when I opened my eyes to evolition.

You have a closed mind. You state that I did not answer your question, but, I did. Because you are closed minded, you want to argue against the possibility of an organism being "created" or developing/evolving into an environment, where no further evolution is neccessary.

You further exhibit your close minded beliefs with your statements about humans or gorillas having offspring that looked like the other species.

Evolition has eliminated the posssibility of that ever happening, because it is not just the phyical appearance that has changed, but the entire physiology of the two species.

Evolution is not a cut and dried, one time shot at things, it is an ongoing process that takes centuries even eons to reach a final result. with some species that may never happen, and the bigger picture is that evolution is not confined to animals but affects everything, including the planet.

Research.
Human Vestigiality and Vestigal Organs.

Well, when it comes to Human evolution, do not forget about the possible Aliens from another Planet influence.

Your wasting your time gents. I've been through this on another site with people like Doubless. They will never understand the concept of evolution.

Yes you can't fix brainwashed.
But his book can't teach you chemistry, physics, mathematics or other skills of reasoning and logic.

quote:

Your wasting your time gents.

Truer words were never spoken, but as the old saying goes, Hope Springs Eternal.

The close minded will die that way, but if someone is not putting forth alternative information how can the open minded make a choice?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Your wasting your time gents.

Truer words were never spoken, but as the old saying goes, Hope Springs Eternal.

The close minded will die that way, but if someone is not putting forth alternative information how can the open minded make a choice?

Crazy
Sometimes we can do nothing but rely on evolution to clean out the gene pool.
No matter what. If antis carry deficiencies in logic and reasoning their descendants will not compete well with those that do. Nothing will change that.