Evolution of Mankind

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, Apr 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Is there actually evidence for it? Yes or No?

    Quite often we accept theories as facts.
    For example, the Big Bang is taught as a fact, but indeed it is a theory.
    If you ask any scientist, they will tell you that it is a theory and is the most probable, but not definitive possibility. The same with the Atomic Sun concept. It is a theory, not a fact, although it is taught as the latter. The same with genetic homosexuality, it is a theory and not a fact. None of these theories have been proven. If they had, they would not be theories, they would be facts and they are not called facts by scientists.

    So, the question is . . . is there evidence that man evolved or is it nothing more than a theory at the current point in our existence?

    (Keep in mind, finding one skeleton of a weird •••••• that stood erect is not evidence of a •••••• to man evolution. There must be more evidence than simply one skeleton or even two or three . . . or even a 100. Evidence would require NUMEROUS amounts of bones as it would have required millions of years to take place.
    test
  2. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    you seriously need to do some real reading... even a magazine article or two would help you out... DNA is one of best allies in finding out when species changed enough to be called a new species.. this works for lice, for fish, for dogs, and for apes and humans... now when you say... "Keep in mind, finding one skeleton of a weird •••••• that stood erect is not evidence of a •••••• to man evolution" you are speaking incorrectly because humans did not evolve from ••••••s but rather from apes... there is a difference and it is rather large. skeletal remains can be excellant evidence for any creature as long as the bones, or fossils, are in good enough shape to be examined and compared to modern creatures.

    now as for really seeing evolution at its best you can look to HAR1 which is a gene that many creatures have and it helps to show the amount of brain growth and change from many creatures such as the chimpanzee, the chicken, and the human... genetic change can show us far more and acts as better evidence than skeletal remains alone...


    now as far as the difference between theory and fact... gravity is still a theory because we havent yet found evidence that says that our concept of gravity is wrong yet... the reason scientists don't use the word fact is because we are still sitting on the beaches of the cosmic ocean, as carl sagan would say, and we dont yet have enough evidence to claim that what we have observed is fact... the term theory though has a variety of meanings... in science that term means a guess based on best current evidence... when evidence is found that says that the current theory is wrong the theory is changed to accomidate the new evidence and this helps to strengthen the theory by not being claimed as fact right away and being rigid... just because the term theory is used doesnt mean that it was some wild mans guess that was based on goat innards... it means that it is a guess that is based on some sort of evidence... this could be somethings observed, a question that was raised by another theory, or a need for explanation for X...


    and by the way our evolution from ape to man took about 7 million years... with most major changes occuring in the last 1.5 million years
    test
  3. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    oh and yes there is evidence so that you cant claim that i didnt answer your question
    test
  4. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Perhaps you can provide the evidence?
    Making statements is not proof.

    Keep in mind, I am not saying that it is not possible. I don't believe in the concept of a "poof" you're here, Adam and Eve fictional account. I never have. I am just trying to make a point. Do not accept everything that you read and do not take every new Scientific Theory as a Fact, regardless of how much passion they teach it with. It is not a fact if it is still a theory. Yes, it is a calculated theory and most theories turn out to be true or at the very least, partially true. However, there are elements that scientists are not taking into consideration because they have ego issues, just like religious leaders. They do not like to admit that they have been wrong for quite some time. That is why they still teach the Atomic Sun concept in High Schools AND Universities even though there is clear evidence against it.

    Darwin disproved his theory.
    How many schools teach what he said later on?
    Not many.

    Do you know what he said about his original theory?
    test
  5. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151
    lol @ them being taught as fact.

    where?


    Big Bang Theory
    Sun has a helium core - Theory
    Theory of Evolution



    they are all taught as theory.



    not law.





    fuckin fool
    test
  6. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Here is a Muslim argument against Evolution:

    "Darwin himself based his book descent of man, on the basis of structural resemblances between man and apes. He did not say that he had proved it. Just like when he was on the voyage of HMS Beagle on the Galapagos Islands he noticed different finches on neighbouring islands having minor differences from each other. He concluded that all these finches had evolved from a common ancestor. Similarly he noticed resemblances between man and •••••• and concluded that both had evolved from a common ancestor.

    If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.

    Similarly, as dissection of the frog’s body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?

    But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.

    The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, “In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation.”

    As far as man’s resemblance with other creatures is concerned the Holy Qur’an says, “There is not an animal on earth nor a bird that flies on its wings but they are all communities like you.”

    It is quite easy to understand that man has similarities with other creatures in various body systems although it is at variance with different species, yet man enjoys a unique position. Today there are one million species of animals and two hundred thousand species of plants. Scientists also say that todays’ existing species are just 0.1 percent of the total species that this earth ever witnessed.

    It means that 99.9 per cent of species have already died out and became extinct. So, out of the 2 billion species that ever existed on earth why is man the only species which has such a highly developed brain? Why is he the only one who communicates with each other with the help of a complete verbal language. Why do no other species come closer to man in these characteristics? Darwin’s theory is based on natural selection, which means that the evolutionary process takes place only when there is a need for it. For example giraffes grew long necks as they needed to eat the leaves of tall trees.

    The question is what was the need which made man to develop so fast and evolve in to such a remarkable intellectual and social creature that he is unmatched by the two billion species which ever existed on this earth.

    If, according to Darwin, ••••••s and apes had the same ancestors as mankind, then why did they not develop into creatures resembling man. Why did they remain so far behind whereas the environmental conditions and rules of evolution apply equally to all species.

    In fact, from the evolutionary point of view man has shown some negative trends as compared to these species. For example, if at all man has evolved from a common ancestor of ••••••s and apes, why is a new-born human infant so dependent on his parents for a relatively much longer time, as compared to the offspring of ••••••s who are up and about in a much shorter time after birth. Remember that evolution is a process which improves the ability of a species to live in a better manner in an environment. It does not take away the already existing good features.

    This obviously means that man and •••••• have no link with each other as far as their ancestry is concerned. And here we should not forget that scientists hold the opinion that the human DNA is evolving at a much slower pace than in other species.

    Then why is it that a specie which, according to scientists, came into being only a few million years ago, became the most prominent creature of the world, whereas those species which have existed for the past 3.5 billion year are still at the stage of development where they had been before and have not shown any social or intellectual improvement?

    If we compare the human being with other species one thing becomes clear; Most other species, such as the ••••••, exist in sub-species.

    Apes, orang-utans, gorillas all having anatomical differences with each other but there is only one specie, homo sapiens, living in the world. Although there are racial differences, anatomically we are all the same. Humans from all continents have the same bones, vessels, muscles, nerves and other anatomical features and there is no sub-species among them.

    This is further proof that man did not evolve as suggested by Darwin but came into being by the will of God. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his arrival on the earth was not a gradual conversion from apes."

    Written by Dr. M. Karim Islamabadi



    He repeats what Darwin himself said. If Apes, ••••••s and Man all evolved from a common ancestor and are all equally as old as the other then apes and ••••••s should be evolving as well. Yet they are not. Why are they not evolving? Why are ••••••s today like ••••••s thousands and thousands of years ago? Why are apes today like apes thousands and thousands of years ago? What sets man apart?

    Yes, there are similarities between our DNA and theirs but there is also a very HUGE difference. There is a part of our DNA that is found nowhere else on earth in no other creature. Scientists like to ignore this fact. But it is there.

    Physicists are currently trying to connect this strand (I think I'm using the right word here) of DNA with Quntum Physics because human beings have the ability (unlike all other animals) to literally alter the material universe with the mind. It is not a fiction, it is a proven fact. With the mind we can not only move things, we can alter their state, simply by willing it and believing.

    Scientists ignore a lot of facts out of fear of losing their credibility.
    test
  7. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    They are called "Theories" but they are not taught as theories. If you listen to professors, they never say "We believe." They say, "The atomic blah blah blah blah." It is the manner in which people speak which changes it from a theory to a statement of fact. "We believe" indicates that it is a theory. When you state it as as a matter of fact thing, calling it a theory is contradictory.

    Calm down.
    Stop with the insults.
    I'm not playing that game anymore.
    test
  8. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151

    dont got to school in Kansas.

    I've never had that problem.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    So your professors always open with the phrase, "We believe"?

    I've gone to schools around the world and they always stated everything as facts when it came to science. Even evolution was stated. It was almost like they were proclaiming it.

    Very odd considering there is not a shred of evidence.

    But yea, this University is a joke.
    Whatever, doesn't really matter.
    An MA is an MA. Just a piece of paper.
    It's the title that I'm working for.
    Unfortunately I'll need it to ward off the wolves.
    test
  10. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151
    BA first pal.

    lol.
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Obviously

    That's three semesters away (after this semester).
    Then 4 more semesters and we have our MA.
    Then we go over seas and pursue our Ph.D.

    Then we're done with school.
    Sounds like a long time but the last two years have flow by.
    test
  12. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    wow... i dont know where to start... look im tired tonight but tomorrow morning i will type a rebuttal.. for someone who claims to be flying through school you are pretty thick and dogmatic....

    and whats up with copy and pasting a guy that claims that the evidence for evolution is weak then goes on to say that if evolution isnt true that god creating a human is the only possible answer without dropping a shred of evidence... is he trying to be a fool??? i mean seriously... duke claims that lack of evidence calls for the downfall of evolution but lack of evidence proves god and god creating humans... that is a joke and the worst logic & reasoning ever used... i'd be interested in knowing what his doctorate is in.... i would suggest bullshit with a dab of dogma
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    The person making his argument is Muslim.

    Azues has a hard time with theories based on Evidence. And he thinks theories based on no evidence are more theologically effective. What he is doing is switching the Burden of Proof on to you. This way he doesn't have to explain God & creationism. He can now attack theories of Evolution. I Think he is following "Einsteinian religion." All Though he doesn't even realize Einstein Utilized God as a metaphor. And I really wish he hadn't because of how pantheistics confuse it.

    evolution by natural selection follows the rules of Occam's razor giving a parsimonious explanation. The argument from design has a major flaw for the simple fact, God is not Simple but complex, Therefore this God who controls or is every particle would need a Gigantic explaintion. The Gigantic explation for God doesn't exist. Thus, Occam's razor bends toward evolution by natural selection. Good to see I'm not the only sick of this religious bullshit.

    God is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
    test
  14. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    always good to see that someone else is reading Dawkins
    test
  15. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I suggest everyone truely wanting to know all about God read his book.
    blind faith is for the crippled.
    test
  16. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    What dogmatic view did I display? Try not to fall into the same ditch that Menaz slipped into. He's having one hell of a time climbing out of it. Then again, maybe if you jump down in there with him he can climb out on your back. But, I wouldn't expect him to pull you out once he gets on solid ground.

    *Shrugs*

    Unfortunately this man is not immune to the same inconsistancy that 99.9999% of people, educated or not, fall into. It is often easier to see the other view's flaws and ignore your own.

    Proving that the evolution theory has flaws, does not prove Creationism.
    However, proving that the evolution theory has flaws does prove that the evolution theory is flawed. We, as fully functional and analytical human beings cannot ignore the 90% of his argument just because his conclusion is a mess.

    The 90% still stands.
    The 10% conclusion is insufficient.

    If scientists ignored the 90% of all theories just because 10% is flawed, we wouldn't be where we are today. People often see things as Black or White and cannot observe the vast grey areas in between.
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I wonder if Menaz can explain how something can come from nothing?

    The Big Bang Theory is cute, but unfortunately every cause has an effect and every cause is the effect of another cause. This Universe may have very well begun with a Big Bang, but that would require it to belong to a much larger system which has not yet been observed. Not to mention that physicists unanimously agree that there are likely parallel Universes and that all of them belong to a larger system.

    Let's see him try to wiggle out of that one with rhetoric.
    test
  18. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Gee weez another personal attack. I don't know if you noticed this but I came to give j deazy a heads up, because your argument is switching the Bruden of proof and I didn't want him to waste time writting out a long post to such a moron like you who won't even prove his creationism which is not supported by any evidence and which is not superior to natural selection ethier. You're actually the one who has been lying in the ditch, only a pointed stick is poking you, and inorder for you to hull yourself out and away from the Jabbing poke you must personally attack and switch the Burden of proof. Which is not my job or his job, but your job as a blind believer in God. You're spirtual belief does come with creationism because you've annexed it. I don't need anyones help to show you're a fucking retarded, I don't think j deazy does either. you've been making an ass out of yourself for the past 3-5 threads.





    You're not paying attention. The bruden of proof is on you to PROVE CREATIONISM.

    Azues want a cracker?
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You're not understanding dipshit. You have to explain scientificly the creation of God Which means you subscribe to there being another creator that created God. However, You claim God is Monotheism. And this Comes from - Religious scriptures. You've also live in the Spectrum of menaz follows the Big bang "theory" when I have made no such claim to follow it or not. You have no attack route. You've been measured and weighed, You must explain Creationism in its totality.

    it's not rethoric to ask you to explain ^that^ espeically when no Physicist can.
    test
  20. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Why would I prove creationism?
    I am not a creationist.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)