An evolutionary question

[gallo]

Quote by: harrythehorton Alright, i'm definitely not a debate specialist, nor will my major be English. so please excuse my lack of well worded statements.

Please don't take my peculiar sort of stern, and seemingly inflexible comments as criticism. I assumed that you were a high school student (as you confirm below). I actually meant to encourage you to learn in my clumsy, self-righteous sort of way. You're on the right track and seem to know more than most high school graduates.

I'm currently taking Bio II (had a teacher who didn't rly do anything in Bio I), so please excuse my lack of desire of going into great detail with what we've been over thus far.

I suspect that there is no lack of desire on your part. You did quite well in spite of the fact that your Bio I teacher didn't do anything. That is usually the case. Evolution is usually covered in the last chapters of any text and considered optional in many cases. Not only that, biology teachers sometimes shy away from covering the topic for political reasons, fear of conflict with parents, or lack of their own knowledge. Again, where you were wrong, you weren't far wrong, and you got many points quite right.

Though, i do believe i've gotten a better understanding than most ^.^... which doesn't say much for the general population.

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

If you are interested in evolutionary biology, you have to get past high school. At least you have a good foundation. Then you have to wade through the undergrad prerequisites (general bio, general zoology, general botany) and unlearn erroneous concepts before you get into the really good stuff, like ecology, genetics, evolutionary theory, population genetics [take calculus to prepare for this one], and even things like ornithology, field biology, embryology, and microbiology. These days there are other fields like molecular biology and evo devo that didn't even exist when I went to school.

As for correcting your English, I wasn't actually doing that. I was trying to give you the vocabulary that biologists use to express the ideas that I think you were expressing. You're English was fine. Your knowledge of the jargon of evolutionary theory is understandably lacking. Give it time. The jargon is just the words that biologists (as is also true in almost any other field) assign to certain concept - for example, as I mentioned, a cause of evolution as opposed to a mechanism of evolution.

Come back. Argue. If I think you are wrong, I will tell you. If you can show that you are right, I will stand corrected. If you are uncertain, ask questions. If I can, I will answer.

[gallo]

Quote by: rez yeah dude, gallo is a biologist so learn from what he says instead of taking it as an insult. That is not his intentions..

Thank you, rez. It seems that I have been able to actually make a post without offending. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that I finished my tax return and am going to receive a few thousand dollars in refund. It buoys one's spirits, especially since it is a bit more than I recently paid in property taxes on my less than luxurious home.

It also buoys my spirits to know that at least you seem to recognize that I do not mean insult by my critical and caustic style, in spite of the fact that it is often reported as such.

Thanks.

[harrythehorton]

If it were possible i'd love to shake your hand right now.

My current biology teacher most definitely isn't the type to shy away from controversial topics. We had a comfortable seminar the other day about evolution and religion. Unfortunately though, as interesting as biology is...I'm going to try to get into a school that has a major based on artificial life (A-life program at UAT). But i believe we have to know where we've been in order to know where we're going. Without an understanding of the functions of life how can one program theoretical functions for achieving sentience in artificial life(sure it might at first not follow all of the qualities that science requires in order to consider something living, but it's still an amazing subject to me).

I do have a question though. If evolution is based on some mutations and survival of the fittest, how(even if only in personal theory) have multicellular organisms developed organs that were not originally there? or, how would groups of cells become specialized into having the functions which they do today?

[loser]

Sorry for the hiatus all. This is a debate in which I am very interested but I have hardly been outside the Philosophy and Religion Forum and I totally forgot about this thread.

These two subjects would explain random mutation within genes.

That's a fallacy. There are no random mutations. ALL are cause and effect.

And yet I am not the one that says things like... Quote: Quote by: loser Did we evolve away from having body fur so that we would have to kill animals and then make coats from their fur in order to survive in these conditions? "We" didn't do anything and saying it in the first place shows your lack of education...so please, re-read Chapter 1.

Then you agree that we haven't evolved after all. Wow, didn't expect that.

Oh, and zippers...I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

Quote: Or perhaps modern man has changed very little from the very first man. Or perhaps that would go against all the evidence that has been found in the fossil record.

If there was any fossil record "evidence" supporting evolution's outrageous claims, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The details surrounding and supporting the ToE are certainly changing and growing as we learn more, but the theory that Darwin managed to piece together is still fully intact.

That statement in itself is very misleading. The ToE is almost bereft of any support and Darwin's theory that evolution is fueled by natural selection is all but defunct.

Because there are significantly more people than in the past, there's likely quite a bit more random mutations occurring as a whole, but it's not as if the percentage of mutations is necessarily growing.

Once again, the false assumption of random mutations is coloring judgment. Mutations are never random, they happen for a reason.

Another factor in what you said, of course, would be that many people who had been isolated for geographic reasons can, due to technology, now come together and have children, which allows for quite a bit of genetic change

Genetic change is reasonable...so much less pretentious than evolution.

Quote by: scofield As for hair-loss, this is still a largly unanswered question. Actually, that's probably not an accurate statement; in truth there are many answers, just nothing definitive. I'd say that your second sentence is probably more accurate than your first. The savanna hypothesis is extremely popular, although it has its flaws. I tend to buy into the aquatic hypothesis quite a bit more, although it, too, is in need of fine-tuning.

I've got an idea...dismiss it completely, a much better solution.

I fully agree that the ToE is here to stay, and that we've just begun to understand it; after all, the human genome was mapped only recently.

The human genome and DNA in general has put nails in the coffin of the ToE. Evolution cannot explain the genetic code found in every living cell. This code is a complex language set with precise instructions on how to fabricate basic needed parts such as proteins. It is information and it is information and instructions and a complex language that could only have its origins in intelligent life.

Our purely molecular and chemical predecessors ending with abiogensis, and perhaps beginning with some sort of big bang, still requires much explaination, and I imagine that none of us will be fortunate enough to have our questions answered within this lifetime. That being said, there is far too much evidence supporting evolution to ignore the theory's implications.

If you say something enough times, can you actually begin to believe it? Jubloz, I wish I could comfort you by agreeing with your statement but I can't. There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there never will be. The reason is obvious: it's not happening now, it won't happen in the future, and it didn't happen in the past. Humans are humans, they were human in the past, and they will be human in the future. Monkeys were monkeys, are monkeys, and will be monkeys as long as they exist. Things change, things adapt, but they don't evolve (as evolution is taught). We don't have a common ancestor except the commonality of our organic chemical makeup. Inherent diversity is by design. Maybe that's not a comfortable thought for many but it is a reality, nontheless. All humans have a common ancestor: a human!

Although, keep in mind, many genetic mutations are neither beneficial or harmful, and, furthermore, many traits we're quick to label as detremental actually have advantages in extreme circumstances, such as the abundance of cases of sickle cell enema, a lethal genetically inherited disease, that also protects against malaria by preventing the malaria virus from attaching to the person's sickle-shaped blood cells.

An example of cause and effect...purpose.

Also, just to nitpick, no evolutionary biologist is claiming that we evolved from monkeys, but we do share a distant common ancestor with them

We have different (very distant) ancestors. What we share is a Creator.

It is important to realize there's a distinction between monkeys and great apes (pongidae ).

Both of which are distinctly not human.

Yep. Biology aside, external physical factors play a huge role in genetic mutation, and can vary according to exposure to radiation or chemicals. As if reproduction didn't complicate things enough, all other environmental factors may come into play.

Yes, indeed, cause and effect...purposeful and designed.

"loser", you do seem to have a common misunderstanding of evolution.

Yet things are rarely as they seem.

It would be, perhaps, more accurate to say that evolution is spawned by "chance".

Convenient, perhaps, but not accurate.

Since loser is not back I would assume that he is studying Chapter 1 of his Biology book.

I'm back!!!

It goes back to the fact that there are some things about the origins of life we don't know. We who appreciate science are willing to accept that while considering that someday we may know or perhaps we'll never know. But the lack of a scientific answer does not automatically suppose a theistic answer. In other words, when science says, "we don't know", that does not mean that god did it.

This is so true. Yet, the reverse is true, also...it does not PRECLUDE a theistic answer or the existence of God. It is a wise man who does not jump to hasty conclusions.

Biologists are slowing learning how to create life from non-life, so keep watching.

Well, after all, man was created in the image of God. Why should it surprise anyone that they are approaching the ability of God...ever learning, and, yet, never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It's already possible to create a virus from scratch (although whether a virus classifies as life is debatable), and recently some geneticists were able to insert the code of one bacterium into another, turning the second bacterium into a clone. This is actually pretty amazing when you think about it, because it's, albeit on a smaller level, the equivalent of my putting all of my DNA into you and your body turning into an exact copy of me. To my knowledge, there's some very promising programs working on actually piecing together an entirely new cell from scratch.

It's a lot easier when you already have the code in existence to copy. Let's see them come up with a new kind of code that will create a new kind of cell or life (though it would still be based on prior existent knowledge).

Anywaaayyy... Besides ToE, there are no other explanations that do a better job at explaining how life changes over time.

Well, of course there is...that's what I'm trying to tell you. We can have tremendous amounts of change, even 'speciation', without having to resort to pseudo-science fantasy such as that proposed by Darwin.

I'll just skip the chase to the catch, since you have a specific goal in mind; how about the existence of an invisible Him with a complete lack of evidence, yet a heap of evidence to the contrary? Yes, accepting the invisible Him would be irrational.

Now, it's obvious (using logic) that you are referring to God. You make two false claims/assumptions: 1) a complete lack of evidence; 2) a heap of evidence to the contrary.

If one looks at this objectively, one must concede that the evidence for the existence of God far exceeds the evidence to the contrary. I declare your evidence is more invisible than God Himself!

[Kite]

Quote by: loser Sorry for the hiatus all. This is a debate in which I am very interested but I have hardly been outside the Philosophy and Religion Forum and I totally forgot about this thread.

Well you are forgiven, and let me be the first to thank you for forcing me to wade through another rant in which you provide zero evidence to support your claims, and choose to simply ignore any information that might throw your predrawn conclusion out of whack.

That's a fallacy. There are no random mutations. ALL are cause and effect.

Where is your evidence to support this be all end all claim?

Then you agree that we haven't evolved after all. Wow, didn't expect that.

I certainly didn't expect you to turn a scientific debate and discussion into a 'lets see who can twist the other guys own words against them best' contest.

Oh, and zippers...I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

Just like you pretend to not hear all the evidence and sources and facts presented in this thread. You even pretend not to see incredibly stupid statements made by yourself.

If there was any fossil record "evidence" supporting evolution's outrageous claims, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Perhaps you should go back and read 'Paleontology: Chapter 1' this time, that way you would know that fossils aren't exactly plentiful or easy to find.

That statement in itself is very misleading. The ToE is almost bereft of any support and Darwin's theory that evolution is fueled by natural selection is all but defunct.

Once again, you make a very bold statement and then back it up with absolutely nothing. Where is your evidence, where are your sources, where are your FACTS?

Once again, the false assumption of random mutations is coloring judgment. Mutations are never random, they happen for a reason.

What is the reason behind the genetic mutation that would make a child autistic? Retarded? Deaf?

Genetic change is reasonable...so much less pretentious than evolution.

Perhaps you could be troubled to explain to us the difference between the two.

I've got an idea...dismiss it completely, a much better solution.

Yes, if I cant see the bus barreling toward me thats about to turn me into a messy red spot on the pavement, its not there. Thats not irrational or childlike at all.

The human genome and DNA in general has put nails in the coffin of the ToE. Evolution cannot explain the genetic code found in every living cell.

You aren't even making sense. How does the presence of DNA completely disprove evolution?

This code is a complex language set with precise instructions on how to fabricate basic needed parts such as proteins. It is information and it is information and instructions and a complex language that could only have its origins in intelligent life.

Every living thing has DNA. It is certainly not confined to 'intelligent life', although what you may consider intelligence may differ greatly from another person.

If you say something enough times, can you actually begin to believe it?

You are living proof of that.

Jubloz, I wish I could comfort you by agreeing with your statement but I can't. There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there never will be. The reason is obvious: it's not happening now, it won't happen in the future, and it didn't happen in the past. Humans are humans, they were human in the past, and they will be human in the future. Monkeys were monkeys, are monkeys, and will be monkeys as long as they exist. Things change, things adapt, but they don't evolve (as evolution is taught). We don't have a common ancestor except the commonality of our organic chemical makeup. Inherent diversity is by design. Maybe that's not a comfortable thought for many but it is a reality, nontheless. All humans have a common ancestor: a human!

Your statement speaks for itself. Evidence, facts, sources, figures, anything besides you beating your chest and screaming "IM RIGHT IM RIGHT".

An example of cause and effect...purpose.

You are right, even though it is a self defeating purpose, dying from anemia instead of malaria.

We have different (very distant) ancestors. What we share is a Creator.

Oh boy, here comes the God train.

Both of which are distinctly not human.

Monkeys and apes are capable of preforming math and communicating with humans, in addition to sharing a large chunk of our DNA. Not a human certainly, but even you cant be blind to the fact that they are similar.

Yes, indeed, cause and effect...purposeful and designed.

A cause of gamma radiation, an effect of an eyeless three armed child. Hardly purposeful or designed by any parent.

Yet things are rarely as they seem.

Actually, you are exactly the pseudo-scientist I thought you to be.

Convenient, perhaps, but not accurate.

How is it not accurate? Can you please back up your denouncements with something like, oh I don't know, evidence?

I'm back!!!

We noticed.

This is so true. Yet, the reverse is true, also...it does not PRECLUDE a theistic answer or the existence of God. It is a wise man who does not jump to hasty conclusions.

I agree, but when given the choice between an answer that has evidence and facts to back it up and an answer made of baseless claims and assertions, I'll choose the former.

Well, after all, man was created in the image of God. Why should it surprise anyone that they are approaching the ability of God...ever learning, and, yet, never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

And the ugly, fundie truth surfaces.

It's a lot easier when you already have the code in existence to copy. Let's see them come up with a new kind of code that will create a new kind of cell or life (though it would still be based on prior existent knowledge).

So just because they would have to use the only known code that there is to create life, that means that their feat is meaningless?

Well, of course there is...that's what I'm trying to tell you. We can have tremendous amounts of change, even 'speciation', without having to resort to pseudo-science fantasy such as that proposed by Darwin.

Would you be so kind as to explain how tremendous amounts of change and 'speciation' would preclude the ToE?

Now, it's obvious (using logic) that you are referring to God. You make two false claims/assumptions: 1) a complete lack of evidence; 2) a heap of evidence to the contrary.

A complete lack of evidence and a heap of evidence to the contrary would seem to be problems more yours than his.

If one looks at this objectively, one must concede that the evidence for the existence of God far exceeds the evidence to the contrary. I declare your evidence is more invisible than God Himself!

Interesting choice of words, your evidence is more invisible than God himself. The only reason all the evidence is invisible is because you wont let yourself see it. To look at something objectively is to go in without bias and with an open mind, actions you have refused to take.

What really gets me is that you created this thread under the guise of wanting to be educated, and then you proceeded to upend the table that we had all placed our evidence on and scream "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" Science is supposed to be the pursuit of knowledge, not the exclusion of knowledge that does not suit your fancy or purposes.

[loser]

So, back to the original topic. Quote: Quote by: loser I'm sure that I don't understand the TOE in all of its nuances so perhaps someone can answer this question for me. If you are sure that you don't understand it, then why on earth would you offer the opinion that it is hard to accept in the last paragraph? If you understand it, then it is actually quite easy to understand on a broad, high school level. If you don't understand it, then how on earth can you say that it goes against reason? That's unreasonable.

The key is in the word "nuances". I understand it's premise "on a broad, high school level" and, in fact, even more so than that. Furthermore, I am quite proficient in science, most notably in chemistry. However, like many other science-minded intellectuals (a minority, to be sure, but growing) I am not satisfied with being a part of the status quo. I am a pioneer, not a settler. I am an eagle, not a lemming. I am a rebel (with a cause), not some dandy yankee doodle. IOW, I feel no need to sublimate my own understanding in deference to the major consensus.

In fact, your response to rez was ad hominem without a single response to any matter on which he instructed you.

I suggest that you go back and re-read Rez's reply to me. Instructed? Give me a break, please.

Nevertheless, I shall attempt to answer. Quote: It's my (mis?)understanding that evolution is triggered as a survival of the fittest phenomenon; that adaptations which give a species a clear advantage (a better chance of survival) are the ones that are passed on. Yes. It is your misunderstanding. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, a social economist. Spencer was talking about business in a capitalist society, i.e., businesses that offer products and services that the public demands succeed, while those that do not fail. No biggie. Still a valid theory in economics today. But it misses the mark in biology. Darwin didn't like the phrase "survival of the fittest" applied to his theory (only one of at least 5 in "On The Origin Of Species"), and didn't actually use it until the 5th edition after the public use had become so common. It was Alfred Russel Wallace co-discoverer of the theory who actually accept the term. Even at that, he always (without exception) clearly stated that he was talking about "natural selection" whenever he used the term. Further, natural selection is not a matter of "clear advantage." Clear to whom? The simplest way to state natural selection is differential reproductive success. It is statistical. Those individuals that posses genetic characteristics that give them a better chance to reproduce more offspring will tend to pass those beneficial characteristics on to a relatively larger portion of the population.

You seem to be nit-picking (isn't that an evolutionary advantage passed down in certain species of monkeys? ) over semantics. When I said "survival of the fittest" I was referring to "natural selection". Furthermore, I backed up "clear advantage" with "a better chance of survival". Though I didn't use precise terminology, wasn't the 'gist' of what I was saying amply clear? Nevertheless, thank you for that history lesson.

Hopefully, you are aware that humankind evolved in equatorial Africa.

No, I'm sure that the false ToE has man evolving from some neo-man species (i.e., cro-magnum, etc) based on ancient ape skulls or the like. However, I'm sure that earliest man originated in the Mesopotamia area. I would hope that all humans would be aware of that.

Some arctic animals swim in frigid arctic waters that will kill us in seconds. How much better it would be for humans to have such fur in order to live in the many hostile and extreme conditions. It's not seconds. I notice that you tend to exaggerate a bit.

No, I exaggerate a lot (creative license) but, in this case, I wasn't exaggerating. What I meant was that if a man falls in these icy waters he has literally only seconds to get out before hypothermia sets in. Once this happens, a person becomes too weak to even hold on to a rescue line that might be thrown to him.

So how well do you think that these arctic animals would do in waters around the equator. Why do you think that we don't find them there?

1) Not good and 2) because they weren't designed for equatorial living.

The simple answer is that we evolved in an environment where we didn't need fur. How is that against reason?

So, evolution was a thing of the past but is not applicable in today's world? If so, your simple answer is inadequate.

What environment would? If living in climates like Greenland and Siberia would be suited for fur, why don't humans living in those kind of conditions develop fur? If your answer is "given enough time" then it's unacceptable because stretching adaptation into millions of years makes it unviable. In that length of time, climate change would have artic conditions turned into equatorial conditions. Adaptation must work in periods of time as short as one season. This, in fact, is just what was observed in the case of the finches of the Galapagos Islands when La Nina and El Nino effected climatic changes there.

It's a fact that skin pigmentation is a direct result of climate conditions (eco-systems). This is a 'generational' adaptation and not one measured in millenia.

Because we didn't evolve in an environment with extremes. We evolved in tropical Africa.

Are Icelanders evolving?

But you haven't used reason. First of all, you haven't bothered to educate yourself. Second, you haven't stated why a theory that you don't understand (by your own admission) is unreasonable

I think I have on all three accounts. You, like many others who think themselves wise, are being very presumptious...as if you know what I know. If you're basing your judgment on my words (a select few, at that) then you really don't have much judgment. Don't be so hasty with your conclusions and you won't be wrong as often.

How disingenuous can you be?

Quite...

Actually, the AAH was proposed by marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy. I know that a playwright wrote several books on the subject, but is this sufficient to discredit it as a possibility? The popular alternative, the savannah hypothesis, has a number of flaws that make the idea questionable or, in the least, in need of refinement.

Of course, the flaws in both hypotheses are rather moot if you discard the ridiculous ToE.

For darn sure, we are learning more through science than we expected, and we are learning a lot more about how things are as they are, then we could learn if we restrict ourselves to studying holy books.

Indeed, science is a wonderful thing if one can accept truth and reality and not try to twist and pervert it because holy books reveal things that science cannot confirm.

By that I mean that it was never presented to the scientific community for review, i.e., it was never clearly stated, the evidence was never investigated, no predictions were ever made, and it was never tested, and no results of testing were ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

If it had, would that have done it for you? Do you trust the scientific community, scientific journals, and peer review? Wouldn't you rather do your own investigations and make your own predictions and do your own testing? I know I would.

It's one of several attempts to formulate a possibility as to what environmental pressures forced evolutionary adaptations such as bipedalism and larger cranial capacity. I'm curious, since it seems that you may disagree with both of these perspectives, as to what your opinion is on what forced these fairly extreme biological changes?

My answer is simple. Man has ALWAYS been bipedal and has ALWAYS had a larger cranial capacity. What's difficult about that?

The problem is that there is no evidence to support any of it.

Which holds true for anything involving the ToE.

see seals and sea lions that are quite nice examples of mammals that are returning to the sea and still bear their young on land. The all have hair simply because it is insulation against the cold. And there are penguins that are examples of birds returning to the sea. They too retain feathers as insulation against the cold water, and yet they bear their young on land. And otters and beavers spend most of their life in the water, but retain thick fur as insulation against cold water, while bearing young on land. So whales have a layer of blubber (fat) that insulates them from the cold water - even the young have a layer of blubber in spite of the fact that whales calve in relatively warm waters. So please explain why humankind should have lost our hair without developing webbed feet, webbed hands, flippers, or blubber. Why is this hypothesis based solely on the fact of reduced hair? There are so many aquatic mammals and birds that retained thick fur or feathers as insulation against water, and some that lost hair while developing thick layers of blubber as insulation. And yet, we are to believe that humans were aquatic long enough to lose hair without developing other aquatic characteristics. I'm waiting.

How about walruses? A lot of blubber, scant fur, tusks over a meter long and the largest penis of all mammals...what's up with that? Evolution gone awry?

[loser]

Furthermore, natural selection happens both by chance and is in many ways predictable. Consider the butterfly example. Assume this happens before mankind becomes industrialized. A species of butterfly is living in a valley. This species has blue wings. An earthquake occurs and the plant the butterflies lived on dies out as a result (too many trees fall over... new predators show up... take your pick). The butterfly searches further and further away for food. Eventually, the butterfly occupies several valleys of a region. The butterflies inbreed and interbreed and eventually mutate. They change color. Some are now dark blue. Some are now light blue. Some are now blue with white spots. Some are now a purple-blue. And the original blue is still there. Well, let's say a forest fire causes a species of bird to relocate into the valleys where these butterflies live. The birds have keen vision and begin to eat the brightly colored butterflies. However, the birds have a little trouble seeing the white-spotted butterflies. So, the other four strains of butterfly disapear (predated to extinction) while the white spotted butterfly lives (or even thrives). Given that the predator can't see one of the five species, we can predict that camoflaged species will be the one to survive. Later on, that bird might die out and then the white dots won't really be that helpful... but the butterfly will keep them until they become a detriment. It really all depends on the enviroment.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ToE! Yes, adaptation and change is a fact of life. People develop freckles and butterflies develop spots. But, no matter how much we change, butterflies don't become humans and humans don't spin cocoons. As far back as you can trace life, butterflies were butterflies. Why is that concept so disturbing to diehard evolutionists?

2. It's not stating that we come FROM monkeys, it's just saying that somewhere along the line, a LONG time ago, we shared a common ancestor. We evolved in one dirrection, and they evolved in another(to suit different means of survival) eventually we became separate species.

Totally unsubstantiated. Think about that for a moment. We started out the same but we evolved in different directions.

[Kite]

I think its funny that the chemist thinks he knows more about biology than the biologist.

[Jack]

Quote by: loser Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ToE! Yes, adaptation and change is a fact of life.

Evolution refers to change over time, or transformation over time. Evolution assumes that all natural forms arose from their ancestors and adapted over time to their environments, thus leading to variation. In evolution, there are many rules the environment places upon the survival of a species. There are also numerous ways in which evolution occurs, the most noted are Natural Selection and Adaptation.

(Emphasis added)
Natural Selection

Quote by: loser Totally unsubstantiated.

Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species.

Human Ancestors Hall: Our Primate Origins

[Jack]

Quote by: loser Indeed, science is a wonderful thing if one can accept truth and reality and not try to twist and pervert it because holy books reveal things that science cannot confirm....If it had, would that have done it for you? Do you trust the scientific community, scientific journals, and peer review? Wouldn't you rather do your own investigations and make your own predictions and do your own testing? I know I would...I am quite proficient in science, most notably in chemistry.

The obvious question, then, is; how much of your knowledge about chemistry came from your own investigation and the Bible? Are you completely self-taught?

[Jack]

Here are a couple of videos that discuss creationism and honest science. (Warning, there is a profanity or two)

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)
This one mentions chemical evolution:
YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2).

[gallo]

Quote by: loser The key is in the word "nuances". I understand it's premise "on a broad, high school level" and, in fact, even more so than that.

It is quite evident from you discussions that that is not true. You seem to understand very little about evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, I am quite proficient in science, most notably in chemistry.

But we are not talking about chemistry and you do not display any proficiency in science whatsoever.

However, like many other science-minded intellectuals (a minority, to be sure, but growing) I am not satisfied with being a part of the status quo. I am a pioneer, not a settler. I am an eagle, not a lemming. I am a rebel (with a cause), not some dandy yankee doodle. IOW, I feel no need to sublimate my own understanding in deference to the major consensus.

Funny. You certainly have a high opinion of yourself, none of which is supported by your posts on this board. Did you hear about the study that was done that showed that people who brag the loudest about their competence are usually less competent. They surmised that those people were so incompetent that they were unable to recognize their own incompetence. You're quite a laugh.

I suggest that you go back and re-read Rez's reply to me. Instructed? Give me a break, please.

Indeed he was instructing you. Moreover, you seem to have failed to understand.

You seem to be nit-picking (isn't that an evolutionary advantage passed down in certain species of monkeys? ) over semantics.

No. I'm just explaining to you some very basic ideas of evolutionary biology. You got them wrong.

When I said "survival of the fittest" I was referring to "natural selection".

If you were talking about natural selection, then why didn't you say so. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross and erroneous oversimplification of natural selection. It is generally used by those who lack a clear understanding of evolutionary theory, or by those who wish to discredit evolutionary theory, especially those who wish to fall back on mythology.

Furthermore, I backed up "clear advantage" with "a better chance of survival".

But in most cases there is no clear advantage, and the fact that you equate that to "a better chance of survival" shows that your knowledge is quite lacking. Sometimes the best survivors have no evolutionary impact. What is important is not merely survival, but survival long enough to reproduce offspring that also live long enough to reproduce. Your statements of "survival of the fittest", "clear advantage", and "better chance of survival" make it clear that your claim of knowledge of evolutionary theory is false.

Though I didn't use precise terminology, wasn't the 'gist' of what I was saying amply clear? Nevertheless, thank you for that history lesson.

Yes. The gist of what you were saying was quite clear. It was also quite clear that you lack sufficient knowledge to discuss the topic at even a high school level in spite of your claims of having studied the topic.

No, I'm sure that the false ToE has man evolving from some neo-man species (i.e., cro-magnum, etc) based on ancient ape skulls or the like.

That is either a demonstration of vast ignorance of the topic or an intentional effort to misrepresent. Further, Cro-Magnon (you don't seem to be educated enough to even spell that correctly) isn't a species from which modern mankind evolved. Cro-Magnon is modern man. DNA that has been extracted from Cro-Magnon fossils is indistinguishable from that of modern Europeans. Your lack of understanding is quite apparent. You seem unaware that the evidence isn't based on ape skulls.

However, I'm sure that earliest man originated in the Mesopotamia area. I would hope that all humans would be aware of that.

Yet another example of your lack of knowledge, and thus your failure to educate yourself. Are you talking about the relatively old Neanderthal fossils that have been found around the Levant? Are they what you mean by "earliest man"?

No, I exaggerate a lot (creative license) but, in this case, I wasn't exaggerating.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what science is or how it works. I wasn't even aware that "creative license" and exaggeration were legitimate tools in chemistry.
[quote[What I meant was that if a man falls in these icy waters he has literally only seconds to get out before hypothermia sets in. Once this happens, a person becomes too weak to even hold on to a rescue line that might be thrown to him.[/quote]And that has any relevance to human evolution exactly how? So you are saying that we should have a thick layer of fur so that we can live in polar regions? Yet another example of your complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

1) Not good and 2) because they weren't designed for equatorial living.

Again, more incorrect terminology. Arctic animals weren't designed. They have evolved through various evolutionary mechanisms to become adapted to their environment.

So, evolution was a thing of the past but is not applicable in today's world? If so, your simple answer is inadequate.

What? I see since you don't have any answer you rely on misrepresentation.

What environment would? If living in climates like Greenland and Siberia would be suited for fur, why don't humans living in those kind of conditions develop fur?

Again a demonstration of lack of understanding. In fact, people living in climates like Greenland and Siberia and Alaska have evolved certain characteristics that make them cold adapted. But with your lack of knowledge you have become obsessed with fur.

If your answer is "given enough time" then it's unacceptable because stretching adaptation into millions of years makes it unviable.

Unacceptable to who. You, with your lack of education about science and evolutionary theory? You're funny.

In that length of time, climate change would have artic conditions turned into equatorial conditions.

Are you trying to display ignorance or dishonesty? I guess you aren't aware that it has been cold in Greenland for at least 250,000 years. That's plenty of time for cold adaptations. Why would you claim that it takes millions of years?

Adaptation must work in periods of time as short as one season.

Now you are confused, or trying to confuse. What you are talking about, adaptation, is called physiological adaption. It refers to changes that occur over an individual's lifetime, usually as a response to the environment. That is not evolution. Anyone with only a most basic understanding of evolutionary theory knows that individuals don't evolve.

This, in fact, is just what was observed in the case of the finches of the Galapagos Islands when La Nina and El Nino effected climatic changes there.

No, it's not. You didn't read the book, did you? Perhaps you should read it again in order to grasp what happened. Not a single bird grew a larger beak from one season to the next.

It's a fact that skin pigmentation is a direct result of climate conditions (eco-systems). This is a 'generational' adaptation and not one measured in millenia.

You are grossly misinformed. Skin pigmentation is largely genetic. Contrary to what the uneducated may think, getting a sun tan cannot be inherited. What you are claiming is that if you lived in Africa you would become a black man and your children would be black. That idea is laughable. Have you ever seen a picture of any of Richard Leakey's children? Perhaps you didn't notice that they are most certainly white in spite of the fact that they were born in East Africa, as was their father, and as was their grandfather, Louis.

Are Icelanders evolving?

Yes. Most certainly. Several recent published studies have shown it to be true.

I think I have on all three accounts. You, like many others who think themselves wise, are being very presumptious...as if you know what I know.

Well, I know that you don't know much about science and evolutionary biology.

If you're basing your judgment on my words (a select few, at that) then you really don't have much judgment. Don't be so hasty with your conclusions and you won't be wrong as often.

The problem is that your few words demonstrate a profound ignorance of evolutionary theory, and biology for that matter.

Quite...

Well, at least you admit your efforts to be disingenuous.

[snip]of dishonest misquoting.[/snip]

Why the dishonesty in making it appear that you were responding to me?
Wouldn't you rather do your own investigations and make your own predictions and do your own testing? I know I would.[/quote]Where are you investigations published. How did you inv