Aruko

So if a human baby can't evolve into a monkey baby how in the hell did monkeys evolve into humans? Seeing that's the primary debating subject of evolution I know of.

And yes, that does happen with bacteria BUT that's when there are other bacteria, as you said with the human to monkey baby. There needs to be a different type of bacteria for it reproduce with, or around, to technically 'evolve'. Which at that point is just like a white person and a black person having children. (not meant to be racist AT ALL.) The child isn't going to be all black or all white.


Then it should be called the theory of adaption and not evolution. They ARE two different things. (I've also noticed that over your past several posts you really like to use the "synonymous") To adapt is when an animal, non-native to the area, moves into an area that is normally unsuitable for it. To evolve is when an animal, or organism to be more specific yet more generalized at the same time, changes over time. Not necessarily to survive, but to change morphologically or through the immune system.

When you adapt you are one species.
When you evolve you become your own species.

__________________

MrPwnzerz

I wouldn't have said it unless it was meant as a compliment. I don't insult people unless I think they are idiotic or immature. ;o Anyway, on a different note. You've got to think of it like this. It's not necessarily physical evolution, but in fact it is mental or emotional evolution.

DarkAztek

No, it shouldn't. Adaptation is not all that is evolution. There is much more to it than that. There are mutations and abiogenesis to talk about, just to name a few. Mircro-evolution does not equal all of evolution. Pick up a book and read about it some time. (Btw, I believe I've only uses the word "synonymous" twice, with this counting as one of them... And? Oh noesch! A word!)

And again, NO. That is only a PART of adaptation. Adaptation has a few different variances. Please, please, please, PLEASE pick up a book and read about it. I readlly don't have the time to explain the difference.

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

Aruko

Or there just aren't enough differences and you don't feel like trying to debate this through. I have read several books and or articles about this. (And including your last post I'd count if not 4, 3 times. Just to make sure we're being addequite in our calculations with at least one thing in this thread.)

Do we, as mankind, have any proof that things have mutated? Over history, meaning all documented time, have we observed mutation? I honestly don't know myself, so I'd like to be enlightened on this matter.

And by abiogenesis, if you mean the theory of primordial soup, it's possible. But how is it probable? For a soup of different bacterial-sized organisms to gather into one area creating a soup-like material, where there is technically nothing other then them themselves? For this to happen, at the supposed earliest stage of life (during the creation of the earth/beginning of life), those bacteria would've had to be pretty smart. And there wasn't, at least to our knowledge, any gravitity at that point. SO nothing could pull all these organisms together.


(My direct apologies, I was confusing yourself with one of the other members in this thread that used the word synonymous at least 3 times.)

__________________

flareofdragon

No, you are misunderstanding the primary concept. The primary way a human race becomes another one is through lots and lots of breeding. They have to be isolated and they have to adapt on their own. When atlast the traits become too different, then its called an "evolution."

Growth/aging is not evolution or adaptation.

What you are saying is that a baby is born human but changes into monkey. That does not happen. This is not pokemon.

And yes, humans have mutated. Thats why you have white skin and black skin. Its just that the genetical difference is not that far apart yet.

__________________
freerice.com

flareofdragon.deviantart.com

Azumi

oooohhhh...... kinda long, but worth reading. there's no point on questioning if God does exist or not or if he's good or not. dont you get it yourself? there's one thing to ask to know if God does exist and good- why am i living?

__________________

Aruko

Actually the reason there is white skin and black skin is because the sun shows stronger in certain areas of the world. If you went out and lived in Jordan for a while you would turn into a darker skin. And say you live their the rest of your life. You'd prolly be mostly black by the time you died. That's not evolution. That's a fact of the sun.

So you're saying that the way of evolution is flawed then. There weren't cavemen for the monkeys to breed with to mutate them into a regular human. The evolutionist theory is that monkeys evolved into what was known as the predacor to the modern human, cavemen. Now if monkeys, of the same area, continue to breed and breed and breed, the answer is still going to be monkeys. Even if another monkey came in from some other place, it's still going to be a monkey. If humans continue to breed and breed, we're still only going to produce humans. Obviously if we started out as monkeys, and as the evolutionist theory goes, and have evolved since then don't you think we'd already be evolving, as a human race, into something else? I mean seriously, it's been some 2 billion years since real organisms have really started to live. (not including the first 2.6 billion where the real forming was happening) If evolution is true, we've had enough time to change into something else by now.



Now I agree with you BUT many people don't. Cause they look at their lives and see all of the disappointment and shit that's happened throughout their lives and they think, "If God's soo good and sooo helpful, why is my life shit?!" And what they don't realize is their life isn't shit.

__________________

DarkAztek

No, aruko. You remind me more and more of a creationist that just doesn't want to be proven wrong. Why won't I debate you? Because you're fucking wrong. That's why. Read, goddammit.

Yes, Jesus Christ yes! To say that mutations do not exist is nothing more than denying and falsifying factual evidence that stares you in the face. A quick Google search proves you completely and utterly wrong!

Amino acids have been created in labs from inorganic material and, because of the very nature and building of these amino acids, they automatically attract and work together in order to survive. It is easy to see how this proto-cell, one that has been proven to even replicate, could easily become the first single celled life form. Do your goddamn research before you make shit up. Just because the chances are slim does not make it so that ID is right or Darwinian abiogenesis is incorrect. Things with slim chances of happening occur all of the time. Look at Freud, he had certain brain functions that occur in far less than one out of a trillion people.

The formation of different skin colors is both a mutation and an adaptation. What do you think most adaptations ARE? Yeah, it happened because of the differences in climate in different areas of the world. But it is STILL a mutation to a certain degree.


Aruko, you have NO business debating evolution when you have no idea how even the simplest of factors that make up the theory even work.

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

Aruko

I'm going to take this piece by piece.
I can be proven wrong. And I will accept it. If someone here'd provide more evidence then I already know. I'm currently studying this subject in school AND through this conversation I've been doing private research. SO far no one really feels like disproving me. They just feel like putting my beliefs' down. (and at least I'm not cursing at anyone.)

I shouldn't need to use Google when asking someone who is all-knowing about this subject. Ahem...-_- If you're not going to debate me, don't stay here and talk. But if you're going to debate PROVIDE ME EVIDENCE. That's the only way you can disprove my own theories and or beliefs.

True. But how do we ABSOLUTELY know that the Amino acids did this back then? It's considered prehistory. We have no written record. What you said in this quote above this typing is 99% correct, cause I jsut don't give anything a 100%. Also Amino Acids have had a long time of practice and survival since then, if we're going by an evolutionist calendar. We have no idea what it could've done back then or even if it was in existance. And please don't say we have fossil record they were. The radiometric dating system is flawed, and that's the main way that scientists date things. Although I personally can't provide you evidence it is flawed, in my opinion and through MY research, it's flawed.


Thank you! You're already semi-agreeing with ONE thing I said. Can you give me which degree it is though?

Please, don't put down my knowledge. I find it highly disrespectful and highly inappropriate to put another person down over their research and/or beliefs

P.S. I'll be waiting for when you put my name on your signature.

__________________

flareofdragon

<_< I am disproving you. But you seem to look through it in such a crude and wrong way that I really do not know how to argue with you. You are opposite of what you claim to be, you are not looking through an open mind. You have not even visited the sites that I showed here. And also, you need 100% proof to be proven wrong, and in life, thats almost never the case.

And you do not know, but you think you do. What I have said about evolution is correct. What you are putting down is wrong.

I showed you links, I showed you evidence, I showed you everything.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

^ read these. You are not googling them or anything, I am giving you scientists who have actually studied the field of biology specificly.

This is something I see every single time. We don't care if it has 1 * 10^-16 percent chance of being wrong. If it has high probability, it is a very good find. Only mathmatics is 100% correct, anything else, even your existance, is debatable. For example, it is actually possible for someone to fall through the chair they are sitting on, this was proven through mathmatics, but the chances are so low, we can sit on it and care less.

And btw, although we know how this could bring about the essence of life, it has not been done yet.
You are wrong. Its that simple. Evolution occurs through mutations and environmental influences. Its a drive to control the environment and to better suit its need. This is only possible through mutations and adaptation. Adaptation is only short term, but whichever traits allows the species to adapt properly to the environment becomes passed down as they can breed longer.

And btw, black people are still black in Wisconsin and other cold areas. Its not the sun, its because of genetic mutation that were passed down through a lineage. So no, the sun is not the key factor, though it is the reason black skin was favored (white skins burn easier).

And another thing, the species we came of were were not monkeys/chimpanzees/gorrilas, they all evolved, like we did.

And no, the monkey does not breed with the cavemen (That idea can be proven wrong easily, how did those cavemen get there?), the ancestors which had a higher brain capacity lived longer and bred more. Thus, this trait were passed down to their children (they made more children) and they lost uneeded stuff (most of the body hair). They also started working in upright position (better hand control) and lost their tail (too big to swing in trees). This continued until the recent humans were born.

There are bones to prove these facts true.

We are not an old species, its only been a few thousand years. Plus we do change, but we do not have to rapidly change because THERE IS NOTHING DRIVING US TO! Evolution is only when we cannot adapt to the environment, right now humans can control it to their favor. So there is no reason to mutate.

But even that is a bit wrong, we have mutated. The europeans had passed down traits to survive smallpox, but Indians, lacking these traits, were wiped out by this disease. So yes, we have evolved, but these evolutions are not enough to make us different species.

__________________
freerice.com

flareofdragon.deviantart.com

Aruko

Thank you for the links, I believe I over looked them previously. And everything I read of them, disproves me. Except one piece, the part about the moth. Their information provided was so joggy. At first they're just talking about dark moths and light moths then they're talking about how the dark moths went from 2% to 95% in Manchester. It's like they're adding information to the equasion just so it can make sense for it to work. Logically that's the only part I disagree with.


[quote]And btw, although we know how this could bring about the essence of life, it has not been done yet.[quote] What do you mean by this?


You're probably correct here. But I still am not persuaded that Adapation is apart of Evolution...>.>

I'm not saying that you'll be black in a desert and white in the arctics. I'm saying that the way the black skin color started was through the intense sun exposure in the middle-east/africa areas.


I wasn't saying the monkeys bred with the cavemen...v.v
How does a monkey lose it's tail? Continue to cut it off through the generations until it becomes apart of the genes for it to not grow? Last time I checked they didn't have equipment in that day to genetically change someone/things genes. Sides, how do we know Cavemen existed in the first place? (never knew where scientists got the idea of Cavemen...)

Do you have any examples? Because deciding between you and DarkAztec, I think I'm going to get more information from you.

Wow, you just gave me a wonderful idea that basically proves my beliefs. If the human race is only several thousand years old, and by the Bible's timeline the earth is only 8 thousand, or so, years old then you know humans might just have been here at the beginning of the world. Not scientifically proveable but through common sense, thank you for the title of the thread, I think it's right.


And the Indians were affected because of no prior access to smallpox, I know how that went... (poor Native Americans)


And just as a stated fact, a lot of the things we're talking about are theories. Like Primordial Soup. The first thing stated in my History for school this year was that anything dating before written record is Prehistory. Meaning anything past history is all theories and thoughts and dreams until someone finds something that proves one more theory correct.

__________________

Tabris

I cry for you people.
ANy ways... The reason it's hypotheticly posible for a Human to turn into a monkey, is only through and incredible amount of Dna information loss, and some Dna Tweeking. The monnkey DNA was never there in the first place, so you'd obviously need to add it.
All through history we've seeen evidence of DNA loss, but for soemthign to change what it is completely, and GAIN DNA information, has never beeen done, onc eyou breed yoru way down to a poodle, there's no way to breed back up to a doberman, because the information just isn't there. (to get a poodle, by the way, breed the runts together for a very long line)

I agree with you for the most part Aruko, Like when you said anything that didn't come with a date, has been dated before history, and millions of years ego. How about Carbon dating? There are way to many assumptions made there for you to posibly believe it could be acurate, if you're reasonable, and not blindly following the religion of Evolution....
Any ways, but first you have to assume that there was a certian mother amount, you have to assume that it's rate of decomposing was never alterd, because its' suroundings were always the same, which is highly unlikely. I can't remember the other one, i'll ask my Science teacher and get back to you, he'd know^^.

__________________


C&H FTW

official co-owner of the digimon fan club!

flareofdragon

Alright, I thought you went through the links, I was kind of pissed when you were arguing about the already proven subject. However, now we can debate more logically.

Ok, now, the moths are only shown to show two different genes, black and white colored. For many years, most moths that people saw were white, as the black moths were eaten by birds (Its more visible, thus more birds are going to notice these black moths more than white moths). The number of white moths was very large, and they probably would have evolved so that there would be no black moths.

However, since the trees became painted black through soot, the black moths became less visible and white moths were more visible. The result was that birds noticed white moths easier and ate them. Black moths, being eaten less, reproduced more frequently. Thus through the decrease of the white moths and an increasement of black moths, the black moths reached 95% of the population. It just makes sense


It means that although the idea itself seems very attainable, we have not been able to do so yet through the pre-life era of the earth.

Adaptation is different from evolution, this is true. Adaptation is not related to hereditary genes, like evolution is (although genes are the prevalent force). But I am using this in the sense that species that can adapt to the changing environment better will become part of their evolution. Species that cannot adapt will be wiped out.

You are right. Thats what evolution is.


Oh okay, it seemed like you did.

What you are troubling over is also a very delicate issue (it confuses most biologists). See, the body seems to be able to delete unneeded genes, how it is done is still not found. But basically, if the trait is not used often enough, the gene is erased. It happens to appendix (digesting plants), it is happening to the wisdom teeth (grinding plants), and it looks like its going to happen to goosebumps (used to raise hair up when the ancestors had fur). That is probably what happened to the tail, and its still not completely deleted. Its called the tailbone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)

The cavemen refers to history facts from the caves in France and Britain.

But earth's age is debatable. If you are working with earth being 8 thousand years old, then there is a lot of problems that you have to cover.

And although theory are not 100% fact, scientifical theories are pretty close to it. There has not been one fact that goes against evolution (otherwise it would not be a theory).

__________________
freerice.com

flareofdragon.deviantart.com

Aruko

Sounds fair! ^_^

That I understand. It's how the scientist who wrote that article phrased it that made me disbelieve it. Because first they're talking about black/white moths in General. Then they go to the ones in Manchester city.



Gotcha! ^_^


Finally someone at least semi-agrees with me on this matter.


You are right. Thats what evolution is.



Sorry for coming off that way.

Do you know, personally, when the tail-bone was classified as that in official human anatomy?

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus

The link brought me to some weird site that didn't have anything interesting.


It is debateable, yes. But the timeline in the Bible seems to be a bit more accurate, seeing everything in there is technically a written record, so that's what I base my theories of the Earth's age off of.

__________________

flareofdragon

Okay, since this is not an old earth to new earth debate, I will leave off on that.

But I do not understand your former comment. Are you asking if a tailbone is classified as a vestigal structure? Yes, I am pretty sure it is. Google seems to prove me right, although the first link was confusing. I do not know when though.

__________________
freerice.com

flareofdragon.deviantart.com