Evolution and Creationism

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Turnus+Jan 8 2005, 08:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Turnus @ Jan 8 2005, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-GENERAL_MAXIMUS@Jan 8 2005, 08:19 PM
I was taught two species couldn’t produce fertile young, like the horse and donkey mate and form a mule, mules are all infertile? Is this not so?

That is correct. If you read over what I said again, you'll see that I was saying that they could breed in reference to the theory that Neanderthal and modern man were both the same species (that they were sub-species). [/b][/quote]
So they dont form a seperate branch in our evolutionary history... Is this just a Theory or prooven?


Btw, I made a BIG typo before, I meant ancestor not descendant, bear with me, its 2 am here! :cool

[Turnus]

Originally posted by GENERAL_MAXIMUS@Jan 8 2005, 08:28 PM
So they dont form a seperate branch in our evolutionary history... Is this just a Theory or prooven?

:cry I've been trying to say that it is not thought to be true in every post! They are not the same species!

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Turnus@Jan 8 2005, 08:32 PM
:cry I've been trying to say that it is not thought to be true in every post! They are not the same species!

you say they are NOT the same species, therefore animals from different species cannot mate! Thats what I was taught. If they are the same species ( as regards taxonomy ) and branch, as regards, systematics.


You know what forget it. Im going to bed, we will discuss it when I wake up and can think. lol

[Cliomhdubh]

I've been trying to say that it is not thought to be true in every post! They are not the same species!

me too
i note that the transitional skeletons were all found relativly near africa (mostly israel ) supporting the in breeding theory or they could be all jewish : (jk)- modern man coming from africa sees a hairy neanderthal woman and says :: :devil

[Turnus]

Originally posted by GENERAL_MAXIMUS@Jan 8 2005, 08:36 PM
you say they are NOT the same species, therefore animals from different species cannot mate! Thats what I was taught. If they are the same species ( as regards taxonomy ) and branch, as regards, systematics.

As I said it still isn't known, but the general consensus is that they are not. There isn't enough evidence to argue over.

[Perkele]

Originally posted by GENERAL_MAXIMUS@Jan 9 2005, 03:36 AM
you say they are NOT the same species, therefore animals from different species cannot mate! Thats what I was taught. If they are the same species ( as regards taxonomy ) and branch, as regards, systematics.


You know what forget it. Im going to bed, we will discuss it when I wake up and can think. lol

Animals are considered to be of diffrent species when they canno't have fertile descendants.

[ZaPPPa]

I just want to say congrats for General Maximus for making the milestone of the 1000th reply of this thread!

[Turnus]

Originally posted by ZaPPPa@Jan 8 2005, 10:19 PM
I just want to say congrats for General Maximus for making the milestone of the 1000th reply of this thread!

Argh, I'm 999 and 1001!

[Belisarius]

I just want to say congrats for General Maximus for making the milestone of the 1000th reply of this thread!

Yea! come on guys, soon we will be up there with existence of god! :devil

As I said it still isn't known, but the general consensus is that they are not. There isn't enough evidence to argue over.

Well, by me using the "old" theory which I was taught last week ironically. I think the Homo erectus; Neanderthals etc prove that other animals did exhibit logic, against what some people here think. Just because there are yet undiscovered facts and evidence doesn’t make the whole science invalid. Basically I'd like creationists to explain Neanderthals and Homo erectus?

[Cliomhdubh]

Well, by me using the "old" theory which I was taught last week ironically. I think the Homo erectus; Neanderthals etc prove that other animals did exhibit logic, against what some people here think. Just because there are yet undiscovered facts and evidence doesn’t make the whole science invalid. Basically I'd like creationists to explain Neanderthals and Homo erectus?

while i think they exibited some highly intellegent brain and problem solving i think one point proves that they were not logical beings, not once in either species lifetimes did their tools or fashions change significantly im gonna find some pics of tools to show this point. neanderthals were in fact the worst for this inability to adapt because as their enviroment changed from ice age to normal climate they gradually moved noth with the cold lived in valleys which were like the ones they had lived in during the ice age as if it was going to be a survival of man vs neanderthal and both were of the same mental abilties man surely would have lost..... big time

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Jan 9 2005, 11:03 AM
while i think they exibited some highly intellegent brain and problem solving i think one point proves that they were not logical beings, not once in either species lifetimes did their tools or fashions change significantly im gonna find some pics of tools to show this point. neanderthals were in fact the worst for this inability to adapt because as their enviroment changed from ice age to normal climate they gradually moved noth with the cold lived in valleys which were like the ones they had lived in during the ice age as if it was going to be a survival of man vs neanderthal and both were of the same mental abilties man surely would have lost..... big time

If the tools work, why change them, seems logical to me!

[Turnus]

Originally posted by GENERAL_MAXIMUS@Jan 9 2005, 06:34 AM
Basically I'd like creationists to explain Neanderthals and Homo erectus?

Satan placed the evidence there to deceive man. :blush

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Turnus@Jan 9 2005, 07:13 PM
Satan placed the evidence there to deceive man. :blush

Probably what they would say... ironically! :cool

[glorfindel87]

Originally posted by Perkele@Jan 5 2005, 07:01 AM

I was about to explain this, but just answering the first question made me read trough 10 pages of my school biology book. So instead, I just suggest you read a biology book, it should answer most of your suggestion.


And what is a "Ga"?

I got these arguments by reading a biology site. So, you refute them. 3.5 Ga is the oldest known microfossil. A bacteria.
Now, to a post by Cliomuhdubh that I haven't seen for some reason.

relativly hairless skin as was noted in some of their remains found this allowed for rapid colling off. so they were better adapted to hunting



Now, please, can any of you tell me what is wrong with this? other than spelling.

what is wrong with it? i know no actual skin was found however one would expect there to be ingrainings in the rocks as was found with other mammals futher north at the time it was an advantage for homoerectus to not have much hair.

Ok, what I see wrong with this statement is that saying it is such a great advantage for humans to have no hair. So you tell me we are the only animals to benefit from no hair? Look at all the predatory cats that must rest for most of the day in their fur coats because it is too hot to chase prey. Why would we humans develop (mostly) hairless skin and not a single other land mammal have it other than the naked mole rat?

May i ask what was so advantageous for these australopithicus, that they survived in the first place? They can't run well on two legs? How did they catch prey? how did they avoid becoming prey? Surely not on four legs, that would encourage four legged walking. An ape would seem to have more of an advantage in the wild than a dumb pre-human.
May I point out our only advantage over the physical abilities of animals is our brain. And these pre-humans didn't have much of a brain. Like 800 to 1000 ccs. And chimps have brain sizes to 700 ccs. And, as morble said, brain size means nothing
i just gave you about 4 a few points ago and no creature fully walked on two legs alone till homo erectus hence the name homo ERECTUS. in fact a fit human has a few good advantages over other animals it has the ability to both clib trees and run on the ground and swim very well and previous versions of humans were very strong about the same muscle mass as a chimp.

Climb trees? Run on the ground? Swim? A gorilla can do all of these things as well as or better than any human. The only "advantage" we would have over a chimp (physical ability) is the ability to stand upright to observe prey over high grass. And chimps could even do that to some extent. So where was I at. Oh, Ok, I was saying that if monkeys and apes can run faster on four legs than we can on two, and they can stand upright well enough to observe over distances, than why did we develop the ability of bi-pedal motion if it is not an advantage, but almost a disadvantage?

and if you want an example of evolution in modern man humans are gradually losing their small toe scientist studing human evolution worked with mumified remains in egypt and fossils found in western africa (assumed to be the birthplace of modern man) and found their small toes were considerably longer than ours are today similarly looking at the toe bones of midevil knights found they are silghtly smaller than the egyptians yet longer than ours .
or how about the different facial features of different races even skeletal stucture europeans tend to be heavier build than asian races and african races africans tend to be taller than us.

Ok, first of all, Africans are generally taller than, say, your average white European. So, naturally, their feet would be bigger, and, so would their small toe. Medieval knights had longer toes than us? Who is us? Asians?
The variation in the human race almost proves that evolution cannot be true. Look at the major differences between a 6'5" African Watusi man and a 4'5" Chinese woman, and yet, they can breed fully, and have fertile young. The baby might not look too beautiful, but it would be fully capable of reproducing. I would think evolution would have produced many separate species.

No, my jumping back and forth is you evolutionists fault. I lost count how many times you brushed of subject and started new ones befor I was done. Then, I have to answer the new ones or I get called a loser question ignorer. its one on twenty for crying out loud, give me a break on these type of mindless questions.
jump back and forth because we hgave lots of information about evolution you have yet to put foward one single piece of evidence for creationisim one that does not rely on evolution. if you belive animals just appear out of nowhere then why in the 6000 years of history has not one single new animal appeared. because it doesnt happen

I jump back and forth because when it is ten on one, and I put up one post, and get ten replies, I simply do not have the patience or mind to answer all ten at once. So, I let some topics rest that I could debate far longer on. THe reason there is no "evidence" of the actual creation is because when something is made out of nothing, then there is no left overs, remains, or building evidence. Poof, and it is all there. So there would not be evidence of the actual creation. Look at the Creation, and I see evidence of intelligent design.

[Turnus]

Originally posted by glorfindel87+Jan 9 2005, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (glorfindel87 @ Jan 9 2005, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Climb trees? Run on the ground? Swim? A gorilla can do all of these things as well as or better than any human. The only "advantage" we would have over a chimp (physical ability) is the ability to stand upright to observe prey over high grass. And chimps could even do that to some extent. So where was I at. Oh, Ok, I was saying that if monkeys and apes can run faster on four legs than we can on two, and they can stand upright well enough to observe over distances, than why did we develop the ability of bi-pedal motion if it is not an advantage, but almost a disadvantage?[/b]

No, it is not a disadvantage. Bipedal motion is far more advantageous for LONG DISTANCE than quadrapedal motion (at least in primates). It also assists with cooling the body.

<!--QuoteBegin-glorfindel87@Jan 9 2005, 09:33 PM

and if you want an example of evolution in modern man humans are gradually losing their small toe scientist studing human evolution worked with mumified remains in egypt and fossils found in western africa (assumed to be the birthplace of modern man) and found their small toes were considerably longer than ours are today similarly looking at the toe bones of midevil knights found they are silghtly smaller than the egyptians yet longer than ours .
or how about the different facial features of different races even skeletal stucture europeans tend to be heavier build than asian races and african races africans tend to be taller than us.

Ok, first of all, Africans are generally taller than, say, your average white European. So, naturally, their feet would be bigger, and, so would their small toe. Medieval knights had longer toes than us? Who is us? Asians?
The variation in the human race almost proves that evolution cannot be true. Look at the major differences between a 6'5" African Watusi man and a 4'5" Chinese woman, and yet, they can breed fully, and have fertile young. The baby might not look too beautiful, but it would be fully capable of reproducing. I would think evolution would have produced many separate species.[/quote]

You do not understand it at all. An 6'5" African man and a 4'5" Chinese woman are both of the same species, but are of different SUB-SPECIES! They have branched since their common ancestor, but are still closely related enough to produce fertile offspring, i.e. they have not diverged yet!

[SoggyFrog]

Turnus, before I will prove why Glorfindel is wrong, I first have to let you know that you are wrong about subspecies.

Large differences in traits between modern humans results from the accumulation of traits, not from whole subspecies. Glorfindel, this is because there hasn't been enough time or isolation between modern humans for whole new species, or subspecies for that matter, to emerge. Note that evolution is a long process and not all divergences are successful ones.

[Turnus]

Originally posted by SoggyFrog@Jan 9 2005, 10:53 PM
Turnus, before I will prove why Glorfindel is wrong, I first have to let you know that you are wrong about subspecies.

Large differences in traits between modern humans results from the accumulation of traits, not from whole subspecies. Glorfindel, this is because there hasn't been enough time or isolation between modern humans for whole new species, or subspecies for that matter, to emerge. Note that evolution is a long process and not all divergences are successful ones.

Sorry about that, I thought that different races of humans were considered sub-species.

[Perkele]

:w00t

[Perkele]

I got these arguments by reading a biology site. So, you refute them. 3.5 Ga is the oldest known microfossil. A bacteria.

As I said, I would have to read and re-read my biology book, or at least several chapters of it, then translate it into english in order to explain these things to you. So instead of reading some site in the internet, why don't you go to the nearest librabry and loan a book about biology. That way, you might actually undrestand the whole subject.

And again what does "Ga" mean? Is it abbreviation or a name? I have no idea.

Climb trees? Run on the ground? Swim? A gorilla can do all of these things as well as or better than any human. The only "advantage" we would have over a chimp (physical ability) is the ability to stand upright to observe prey over high grass. And chimps could even do that to some extent. So where was I at. Oh, Ok, I was saying that if monkeys and apes can run faster on four legs than we can on two, and they can stand upright well enough to observe over distances, than why did we develop the ability of bi-pedal motion if it is not an advantage, but almost a disadvantage?

Well, first of all gorillas CAN'T swim, and I doubt adult gorillas climb trees either. Secondly, as has been said earlier, humans are better in long distances. Also I don't know if you have noticed, but hands are pretty useful when using tools, or for example typing. Try type with your legs and maybe you'll see what I mean. Another interesting remark is, that certain predators do not attack 'animals' that are bigger than them.

Ok, first of all, Africans are generally taller than, say, your average white European. So, naturally, their feet would be bigger, and, so would their small toe. Medieval knights had longer toes than us? Who is us? Asians?
The variation in the human race almost proves that evolution cannot be true. Look at the major differences between a 6'5" African Watusi man and a 4'5" Chinese woman, and yet, they can breed fully, and have fertile young. The baby might not look too beautiful, but it would be fully capable of reproducing. I would think evolution would have produced many separate species.

Well, on the other hand egyptians are not africans, they are arabs. So explain that then. And how the hell does variation prove that evolution is wrong? You are completely, and I do mean completely, lost here.
For one specie to evolve into new species, there must be isolation of a population. Troughout human history there has never been long enough isolation for certain race to evole into a new specie. I strongly suggest you open that biology book, it is all explained there(providing that it is not written by a creationist ).

[Cliomhdubh]

Ok, what I see wrong with this statement is that saying it is such a great advantage for humans to have no hair. So you tell me we are the only animals to benefit from no hair? Look at all the predatory cats that must rest for most of the day in their fur coats because it is too hot to chase prey. Why would we humans develop (mostly) hairless skin and not a single other land mammal have it other than the naked mole rat?

sorry im writing this between work in college so sorry for punctuation: we are not the only mammal rhinos,elephants,pigs have little hair, note that a cheetah can only run for a matter of seconds, humans have hair its just gtting less thick, at the time of homo erectus africa was alot hotter than today. big advantae not to pass out when chasing prey, ever notice how cats are forced to lick their paws and sleep during midday in africa having hairless skin allows us to hunt when they werent so we took a niche in hunting at this time. same reason we developed erect bipdal motion and no other animal has yet to do , same reason birds fly and we dont, same reason a gorilla can tear you apart with its bare hands.

Climb trees? Run on the ground? Swim? A gorilla can do all of these things as well as or better than any human. The only "advantage" we would have over a chimp (physical ability) is the ability to stand upright to observe prey over high grass

actually we are brilliant swimers compaired to either ape they are generally afraid of water. we can observe prey over the grass while feeding and walking this is a huge advantage as al members of the group can feed

if monkeys and apes can run faster on four legs than we can on two, and they can stand upright well enough to observe over distances, than why did we develop the ability of bi-pedal motion if it is not an advantage, but almost a disadvantage?

keep in mind weve only been walking up right since homo erectus, i just keep repeating myself dont i . an ape cannot run for 4km we can. apes live in the forest we dont they can escape up trees. an ape cannot walk and feed at the same time

Ok, first of all, Africans are generally taller than, say, your average white European. So, naturally, their feet would be bigger, and, so would their small toe.

given but even their small toes shrink every generation

THe reason there is no "evidence" of the actual creation is because when something is made out of nothing, then there is no left overs, remains, or building evidence. Poof, and it is all there. So there would not be evidence of the actual creation. Look at the Creation, and I see evidence of intelligent design.

em how about the fact that when you dig down to layers dated 20,000 years when there were no modern men only homo erectus. now dig down 19,000 years small number of men, 18000 slowly increasing, or how about the hole rise of mammals thing,

you only seem to want to disprove evolution you cannot prove creationisim by your logic i could say i created animals im responsible for this world.....