The question is thousands of years from now IF humans are extinct, and IF another INTELLIGENT life form comes along and finds fossils of Great Danes and Chihuahuas, will they think that evolution produced these breeds? :)

You're probably joking around, but this is an incredibly excellent point! It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past just through fossils. Fortunately, fossils play only a minor role in evolutionary theory.

... It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past ....
Well : of course we also know through papers and stories from the past what the capabilities were of people around 2.000, 4.000, 10.000, or 100.000 years ago.
The smarter humanity gets through evolution, the bigger influence that will have on future developments. From what we know from the past, humanity never reached the levels of today ever in the past. So that problem is irrelevant for the findings of today, but indeed will be a problem of "tomorrow"!

Good point from inthebox, excellent reaction by yourself !

:rolleyes:

·

The smarter humanity gets through evolution,
:rolleyes:

·

Explain this sentence please.

Explain to children why they should go to school to learn and get an education if what you posted is true. ;)

You're probably joking around, but this is an incredibly excellent point! It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past just through fossils.

Exactly, my point fossils do not necessarily confirm evolutionary theory.





Fortunately, fossils play only a minor role in evolutionary theory.


An admission of the incompleteness of the "fossil record" to support evolutionary theory? ;)

Exactly, my point fossils do not necessarily confirm evolutionary theory.

They don't confirm everything about evolutionary theory. There are gaps. We know this. Scientists fully admit to not having all the answers (unlike Creationists who claim to know things no human being could possibly know). But that doesn't change the fact that fossils still fit neatly within the framework of the theory.






An admission of the incompleteness of the "fossil record" to support evolutionary theory? ;)

Do you know what it takes for an organism to fossilize? We are incredibly fortunate to have ANY fossils at all. But the point is, that even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

I think we have to be careful with our wording here for people who really have little to no grasp of how evolution works. Otherwise, you'll get questions like, 'how come evolution hasn't produced a Great Dane?'.

It is not just a matter of man being able to reduce the time it takes to produce varying characteristics and traits, but also a difference between artificial selection and natural selection....
So artificial selection is quite a bit different than natural selection in this way. I don't mean to be a nit, but it's an important distinction, especially for those with little understanding of how evolution works to begin with. To even ask the question, 'why hasn't evolution produced a chihuahua?', shows an astounding ignorance on the subject.


That's the idea when I posted a response to Sass when she used decades of e. coli research as evidence of no macro evo. At this point, we don't know if any wild e.coli have evolved into something other than a bacteria. But in the lab, it's all artificial selection just like with animal husbandry.



-

Explain this sentence please. Explain to children why they should go to school to learn and get an education if what you posted is true.
Ok : I'll explain it once more on your level...

"The smarter humanity gets through evolution, the bigger influence that will have on future developments. From what we know from the past, humanity never reached the levels of today ever in the past. So that problem is irrelevant for the findings of today, but indeed will be a problem of "tomorrow"!"

The smarter humanity gets, the more it will change it's natural habitat. And seeing global warming that will not always be for the better!
In the future results of that higher intellect will result in loads of items and effects that are not natural and therefore may - much later - confuse archaeological findings into incorrect conclusions.

Over the last 8.000 years mankind developed agriculture, changing our animal lifestyle of hunting apes for ever.
Only for the last thousand years or so mankind has added to nature's trove of research via selection and breeding.
Only for the last 50 years DNA research has allowed mankind to actively change part of natural evolution developments.

This is a new situation, and it's effect will increase with time and intellect. At present we base our conclusions on findings that are mainly natural based, not yet influenced by mankind. But in the future it will more and more difficult to see what was natural, and what was human developed.

Two examples : Internet is a blessing for distribution of knowledge and other information. But computer viruses distributed over the Internet are not.

DNA research is a blessing for those with genetic based / caused diseases. But for future research our current DNA experiments may cause all kinds of confusion on the origin of these changes.

===

Children should go to school to learn as much as possible within their capacities and capabilities. But that does not mean that the increase of that knowledge is in all aspects of life always a positive. It can also be a cause for problems, problems like I pointed out before.

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE]

The bible also does not specifically mention kangaroos, but that does not mean it loses its credibility because of it.
So to say the Bible is not credible because it does not mention a particular animal is an invalid supposition.
Besides the Bible does describe animals with a tails as large as a cedar tree which is very consistent with what we know of dinosaurs today.

We have been over that before, the bible could very well be making reference to crocodiles not dinosaurs.







I know you hate Christians but I think you are going over board with your hate speech. I would put you in the same category with hateful people like the KKK nazis etc. with this kind of speech.
I don't believe in Hindu teaching but I would never tell Hindus that their teaching is Bull Sh*t.
I think that is a very hateful thing to say about another person's Beliefs.
I really think you should be ashamed of that.


Funny thing about you SassyT. You claim to know that I hate christians. I have never said that. And if you think you KNOW so much please show me the post where I stated that I hate christians.

And if you would read my post, you will see that it says "could that maybe mean" I am not saying it is BS I am simply arguing that the fact that the bible doesn't state certain things that science has proven could show that it is not 100% accurate. Besides, I said the bible may be BS not the christian beliefs. Get it right.

Please do not make false claims that you have no proof to back up. I would be ashamed of myself if I posted a claim that harsh that wasn't true.

How about this one for you...

If evolution isn't real, then that would mean that the earth was developed, I mean appeared, just as it is now. Because you can't say that God made the earth with all of the continents touching and all of the animals had free reign over every part, and then it broke apart and those animals didn't ADAPT/EVOLVE to live in the NEW earth.

And where is the garden of Eden? Why is it hidden, why doesn't the bible tell everyone where it is? Is it simply coincidence that scientist haven't found EVIDENCE of the Garden of Eden? But they have found evidence of dinosaurs and other animals not in the bible?

What of the cavemen I brought up earlier? How come they weren't smart enough to write god's word down? But 100's of years later man decides to write the bible, and it doesn't mention the invention of the wheel, cavemen, or anything that was before the bible came along.





You know what, never mind.. Why argue. Those that do not have the desire to know will always refuse to learn.

That is my quote for the day. From yours truly. 52 pages into this and we are still arguing the same crap. And now I am being compared to a group of idiots like the KKK by someone who has degraded every single person on this thread that doesn't think like her. Whatever.

AND SASSYT.. I just want to say you seem to be more in the classification of KKK. EXTREMELY simple minded people that refuse to believe any other way but the way their leaders tell them to believe. Good luck with that.

[QUOTE=lobrobster]It is all over the place Sassy if you want to study it, instead of spending all your energy denying it exists. Did you know that there are snakes that have remnants of a hip bone?

The so called "hip bones" are not vestigal. The pelvic bone serves as an anchor for certain muscles, and the hind limbs are used during mating and serve to grasp during locomotion in certain species of snakes. A vesitgal is just a name given to a organ with an unknown function. Instead of doing work to see what their function is, Dawinists jump to the conclusion that it is evidence for macro evolution. If snakes and lizards had a common anscetor we should see plenty of nice neat transistionals. What do we find in the fossil record? Distinct lizards and distinct snakes and zero intermediates. Just like every other group that supposedly shares a common anscetor.



We see birds with feathers that no longer fly.

Again this is Micro evolution because the bird is still a bird even though it does not fly


We have found fossils that show nostrils moving up and back into the skull and merging as a single blow hole to show that dolphins and whales were once land creatures.

There is no evidence that these are in fact transitional form. Darwinists fail to make the distinction between "transitional forms" and extinct lineages.
Dawinists have determined whales were once land animals based on the Andrewsarchus fossil which is said to be a relative of the actual ancestor. Andrewsarchus is a terrifying wolf–like creature, with a large head and fierce teeth. All these "inferences" were made from one skull!. lol please if you are going to claim a wale evolved from wolf like creature, you are going to have to give more evidence than a 90–centimetre scull. :rolleyes:


We see that mole rats and bats have lost much of their sight as they moved into environments that have little use for sight.

Again micro evolution.. adaptation to new environment.

Just as you cannot actually see the earth orbit the sun in real time, neither can you observe evolution occur in real time. Nor should you expect to. I am not a scientist OR a biologist, so I'm certainly not qualified to teach or present the best evidence to convince you. Go to talkorigins.com if you really want to learn more about macro evolution.





How could they Sassy? We are talking time spans of MILLIONS OF YEARS! Why would you expect humans to have observed this? You're being completely unreasonable.


Lol Fossil evidence... If evolution were true we should have millions of these imaginary transitional creatures in fossil record. However when fossils are found they are always fully fuctional with evidence of transitional ancestors.



It is not a leap of faith at all. It is logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence. Evidence that you simply refuse to acknowledge, because it can't be shown in real time. At least I guess that's your reason.

You see this where you and I don't see eye to eye. You claim macro evolution is FACT and then in the same breath you admit it is a theory based on conjectures. Well lets see what conjecture really means.

con·jec·ture (kən-jĕk'chər)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork

So you admit the theory depends upon some conjectures but you find it amazing that I don't believe it is FACT.
So you want me to believe a theory based on GUESS WORK to be TRUTH?. lol

I am not refusing to acknowledge the so called evidence, I am scientifically refuting it.

[QUOTE=lobrobster]They don't confirm everything about evolutionary theory. There are gaps. We know this. Scientists fully admit to not having all the answers (unlike Creationists who claim to know things no human being could possibly know). But that doesn't change the fact that fossils still fit neatly within the framework of the theory.

Fossil evidence actually refutes Macro evo. Darwinists are the ones who despirately try to force the fossil evidence into the framework of the theory using their "conjectures" i.e guess work.








Do you know what it takes for an organism to fossilize? We are incredibly fortunate to have ANY fossils at all. But the point is, that even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

How convenient for you.. lol
Out of the "few" fossils we have none of them have irrefutably proved macro evolution. Dawinists have fail to make a distinction between "transitionals" and extinct lineages.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]But you insist evolutionists are 'believers' and you denegrate them every chance you get. How Christian of you.

There is nothing degrading about referring to Darwinists as "believers" in the theory of evolution. That is reality. MACRO evolution is a THEORY that has not been proven factual. So if you claim it is fact despite the fact that it is not a proven irrefutable fact, then I am accurate in saying you BELIEVE or have FAITH in the theory.
Sorry if that offends you but that is reality.

[QUOTE]

There is nothing degrading about referring to Darwinists as "believers" in the theory of evolution. That is reality. MACRO evolution is a THEORY that has not been proven factual. So if you claim it is fact despite the fact that it is not a proven irrefutable fact, then I am accurate in saying you BELIEVE or have FAITH in the theory.
Sorry if that offends you but that is reality.


Lets go over this one more time...

Faith(n): (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Belief(n): a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

So with that said, AGAIN, darwinist do NOT BELIEVE IN OR HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING!! So therefore you calling them believers would be the same as calling a christian an atheist. It is not true so it would be considered degrading. And here is one more definition for you...

Reality(n): : in actual fact

Fact(n): a proven truth

Something is not reality unless it is a proven fact. Webster says so. So do not make false claims.


( sorry, I couldn't bite it hard enough!! :p )

Lets go over this one more time...

Faith(n): (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Belief(n): a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

So with that said, AGAIN, darwinist do NOT BELIEVE IN OR HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING!! So therefore you calling them believers would be the same as calling a christian an atheist. It is not true so it would be considered degrading. And here is one more definition for you...





again faith does not pertain to God only. There are 6 definitions of Faith four of which do not relate to God/dieties.



faith


faith (fāth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So people who claim something that has not been proven have FAITH.


Reality(n): : in actual fact

Fact(n): a proven truth

The theory of Macro evolution is niether of these. :)

again faith does not pertain to God only. There are 6 definitions of Faith four of which do not relate to God/dieties.



faith


faith (fāth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So people who claim something that has not been proven have FAITH.
Where does it say that people who claim something that has not been proven have faith?
Did you read all 6. because I don't see that anywhere in there.

Hmmm, not sure why you high-lighted #2, because "darwinist" use logical proof and material evidence to back up their ideas. So in all truth you just shot your own statement out of the water.




The theory of Macro evolution is niether of these. :)[/QUOTE]

Um, I was referring to you calling "darwinist" "believers". No where in my post did I even refer to macro evolution. So again, please read the WHOLE post before you give a response.

AND SASSYT.. I just want to say you seem to be more in the classification of KKK. EXTREMELY simple minded people that refuse to believe any other way but the way their leaders tell them to believe. Good luck with that.

Like wise you believe in Darwinism because that is what Darwinists tell you to believe. So why does it bother you that I have different beliefs?

Like wise you believe in Darwinism because that is what Darwinists tell you to believe. So why does it bother you that i have different beliefs?

Hmmm, again where did I ever say I believed in darwinism? Give me the post #.

I am done arguing with you. All you keep doing is taking people's posts and turning them inside out and reposting them to say what you BELIEVED they said and responding to only the one's you choose to resepond to but expecting everyone to respond to ALL of yours.

Futile attempts. I am bored with this debate.

I think I will go pray for you.

[
QUOTE=achampio21]Where does it say that people who claim something that has not been proven have faith?
Did you read all 6. because I don't see that anywhere in there.

Hmmm, not sure why you high-lighted #2, because "darwinist" use logical proof and material evidence to back up their ideas. So in all truth you just shot your own statement out of the water.

1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

There is no evidence for MACRO evolution, there is however evidence for MICRO evolution. So those who believe Macro to be truth despite lack of evidence have Faith.

Hmmm, again where did I ever say I believed in darwinism? give me the post #.

.

Oh I'm sorry, I got the impression that you the theory of evolution considering your were becoming highly defensive about it. I appologise for that misconception.
So you Don't believe in Darwinism?

I BELIEVE in God. But I think that "evolution" may have poss occurred throughout our history.

Thank you for apology. That was nice.

Do you really not think we evolved at all?

[

1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

There is no evidence for MACRO evolution, there is however evidence for MICRO evolution. so those who believe Macro to be truth dispite lack of evidence have Faith.


Don't know anything about micro or macro anything. Unless microwaves and mac and cheese count? :D

I BELIEVE in God. But I think that "evolution" may have poss occurred throughout our history.

Thank you for apology. That was nice.

Do you really not think we evolved at all?

I believe animals as well as Humans do evolve, but only within the same kind (micro evolution). For example a wolf and a dog evolved from the same canine ancestor. However I do not believe, as Darwinistss insist, that a wolf like creature evolved into a dolphin or a whale. I am yet to see irrefutable evidence for that.

Ok : I'll explain it once more on your level ....

"[I]The smarter humanity [B]gets through evolution, the bigger influence that will have on future developments.







You did not answer the question.

What is the role of school when those who believe in evolution can "get smarter" - via a chance "beneficial mutation" that gives them doctorate level genes... :D...

Because that is the theory is it not? The passing down of "beneficial" chance gene mutations that gives a naturally selected reproductive advantage...

Or do humans "get smarter" by going to school and learning to become more intelligent rather than wait for some naturally selected mutation.


So much is falsely attributed to evolution, that some cannot recognize the intelligence and design that humans possess, as actively demonstrated by science.

You did not answer the question.

What is the role of school when those who believe in evolution can "get smarter" - via a chance "beneficial mutation" that gives them doctorate level genes....:D ....

because that is the theory is it not? The passing down of "beneficial" chance gene mutations that gives a naturally selected reproductive advantage....

Or do humans "get smarter" by going to school and learning to become more intelligent rather than wait for some naturally selected mutation.


So much is falsely attributed to evolution, that some cannot recognize the intelligence and design that humans possess, as actively demonstrated by science.

You are so right Inthebox. I think it takes more faith to believe in Darwinst claims than it does to believe in aliens. Maybe Credo did'nt attend school because he was hoping he would gain more knowledge and intelligents through natural selection. :D

You are so right Inthebox. I think it takes more faith to believe in Darwinst claims than it does to believe in aliens. Maybe Credo did'nt attend school because he was hoping he would gain more knowledge and intelligents through natural selection.
Darwinst - did'nt - intelligents... who didn't attend school??

:D :D :D :D :D :D

·

Darwinst - did'nt - intelligents .... who didn't attend school ???


·

Lol.. I never claimed to be an english major, just a biology major with admittedly horrible spelling skills. :( You on the other hand seem to be relying on "natural selection" to gain knowledge because most of the communication we have seen from you is based on your ignorance of many subject matters.

You did not answer the question.

What is the role of school when those who believe in evolution can "get smarter" - via a chance "beneficial mutation" that gives them doctorate level genes....:D ....

because that is the theory is it not? The passing down of "beneficial" chance gene mutations that gives a naturally selected reproductive advantage....

Or do humans "get smarter" by going to school and learning to become more intelligent rather than wait for some naturally selected mutation.


So much is falsely attributed to evolution, that some cannot recognize the intelligence and design that humans possess, as actively demonstrated by science.

My god. You're lack of understanding about this subject is astounding. Seriously... Read some books on evolution before embarrassing yourself like this.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I hope you're around in 20-30 years when those who don't accept evolution will be held to the same intellectual standing as 'flat earthers' are today.

[QUOTE=lobrobster]My god. You're lack of understanding about this subject is astounding. Seriously... Read some books on evolution before embarrassing yourself like this.

I think Inthebox has asked a valid question here. If the driving force for Macro evolution is natural selection for what purpose did us humans develop specialised qualities such as interlect, reasoning ability etc..
Out of the thousands upon thousands of species that have ever lived, how come humans are the only species that has developed these highly specialised qualities?
Also, I have always been curious, why did we humans even lose our tail?? I think humans would put a tail to good use. For example now, I could use a tail to drink my cup of tea while I type.. hehe..


I'm not sure how old you are, but I hope you're around in 20-30 years when those who don't accept evolution will be held to the same intellectual standing as 'flat earthers' are today.

So you hope, but like many theories that have come and gone before so will this mythical theory that Humans and banana trees are distant cousins. :rolleyes:

Lob:

what is your personal definition of evolution?

of natural selection?

My question to Cred, who states humanity gets smarter through evolution, is how?

I state that people get smarter learning and going to school. This has nothing to do with evolution - in the strict biological sense.

In lay terms people use evolution to mean development or advancement or simply change. That is not the definition of biological evolution.

For example, if a car magazine states BMW's new 3 series is not a brand new model, but an "evolution" from the previous generation, evolution means development. It is engineers using their intelligence purposefully that made these developments possible, not some random chance genetic mutation.

Do you understand?

as to my resume, Bachelors in Biology '86, doctorate '91. Health professional. Saved by the grace of God '05. 40s. ;)

and you? :)

Oh Cred, here you are. I thought you had other things to do with your life or some such thing as that. :confused:

Sassyt you go! Cred can't even hold a candle to you. You make perfect sense in your debates, even I can understand some of it.. you are obviously well studied and educated or else you just have great genes.:)

Inthebox, wow I'm impressed. And I can't wait to see Cred's answer.

Saved by the grace of God 1981 I'm not telling my age though.

[QUOTE]

I think Inthebox has asked a valid question here. If the driving force for Macro evolution is natural selection for what purpose did us humans develop specialised qualities such as interlect, reasoning ability etc..


It is thought that our intelligence really took off after we became bipedal. With our hands now free, our brains grew to devise ever more creative and useful ways for carrying things and tool making, etc. Here's one huge misunderstanding about intelligence and evolution...

Intelligence is not something that every animal is necessarily striving for. If you are a gazelle in the open plains of Africa and being stalked by a pride of lions, you would gladly trade any amount of intelligence for speed and agility. So intelligence isn't always the most optimal or efficient way to go. And one reason for this is because...

We humans pay a very high price for our intelligence. Mainly, that we are born so premature. No other animal can afford to spend as much time as we do learning how to walk and feed itself. Due to our big craniums, a human female could never give birth to an infant mature and large enough to be walking and fending for itself in a matter of days or weeks. This means we have a very long childhood. No other animal can afford to fend for their young for such a long period. So again, intelligence is not something that every animal is striving for. It just so happens it is the evolutionary route we humans took and it worked out well for us. Unless of course, we end up blowing ourselves up through technology, or destroying our planet, both of which are very real possibilities.



Also, I have always been curious, why did we humans even lose our tail?? I think humans would put a tail to good use. For example now, I could use a tail to drink my cup of tea while I type.. hehe..

Tails are mostly used for balance, although some types of monkeys do use them to grasp and carrying things. It's important to remember that everything in evolution comes with an inherent benefit and cost. Obviously, the cost of keeping tails outweighed the benefit for us.


So you hope, but like many theories that have come and gone before so will this mythical theory that Humans and banana trees are distant cousins. :rolleyes:

I don't need to hope Sassy. It is already as much of a fact as relative theory is a fact. I'm sure YOU genuinely hope and pray that evolutionary theory will someday be debunked once and for all, so you don't have to come up with new ways to explain your religious book (lord knows it's already been revised enough times to accommodate science). But don't worry... Your god is safe. There will always be an antecedent event you can attribute to god. Again, evolution says nothing about whether god exists. You can always say god started the whole process in motion. We don't yet know how life got started, but even if and when we do, we don't know how the universe got started, but if and when we do... You get my point. You will always be able to find something prior to our current knowledge and claim, 'god did it'.

Lob:

[quote]I state that people get smarter learning and going to school. This has nothing to do with evolution - in the strict biological sense.

You are correct that learning different facts (education), has little to do with evolution. It is our capacity to learn those facts that comes through evolution.


as to my resume, Bachelors in Biology '86, doctorate '91. Health professional. Saved by the grace of God '05. 40s. ;)

Serious question and I mean NO disrespect whatsoever, but... How on earth can you have a Bachelors in biology and confuse the very simple distinction between learning a series of facts and/or knowledge acquired from school, with the developmental capacity for intelligence?! Do you honestly think we 'learn' intelligence in schools? C'mon... As for your other comments, see my response to Sassy.

So you were saved by the grace of god 3 years ago? I'd be genuinely interested in your experience if you want to PM me. I am not here to make fun of believers, but to stick up for science and education. It actually scares me that so many people in the U.S. don't accept commonplace science.

Peace.

[QUOTE=lobrobster][QUOTE=sassyT]


It is thought that our intelligence really took off after we became bipedal. With our hands now free, our brains grew to devise ever more creative and useful ways for carrying things and tool making, etc. Here's one huge misunderstanding about intelligence and evolution...

Intelligence is not something that every animal is necessarily striving for. If you are a gazelle in the open plains of Africa and being stalked by a pride of lions, you would gladly trade any amount of intelligence for speed and agility. So intelligence isn't always the most optimal or efficient way to go. And one reason for this is because...

We humans pay a very high price for our intelligence. Mainly, that we are born so premature. No other animal can afford to spend as much time as we do learning how to walk and feed itself. Due to our big craniums, a human female could never give birth to an infant mature and large enough to be walking and fending for itself in a matter of days or weeks. This means we have a very long childhood. No other animal can afford to fend for their young for such a long period. So again, intelligence is not something that every animal is striving for. It just so happens it is the evolutionary route we humans took and it worked out well for us. Unless of course, we end up blowing ourselves up through technology, or destroying our planet, both of which are very real possibilities.

Unfortunately this does not answere the question as to WHY out of the hundreds of thousands of species only one (humans) was able to "free its hands" and as a result develop cognition.
Also what has freeing of hands have to do with developing a sense of awareness, phylosophy, ability to reason and question one's existence, morality, speech etc??





Tails are mostly used for balance, although some types of monkeys do use them to grasp and carrying things. It's important to remember that everything in evolution comes with an inherent benefit and cost. Obviously, the cost of keeping tails outweighed the benefit for us.

What are the costs? I think the benefits of a tail would outweigh the cost! Just think how much multi taking we could do.




I don't need to hope Sassy. It is already as much of a fact as relative theory is a fact

This is you belief because I am yet to see evidence that would qualify Macro evolution as fact.


I'm sure YOU genuinely hope and pray that evolutionary theory will someday be debunked once and for all, so you don't have to come up with new ways to explain your religious book (lord knows it's already been revised enough times to accommodate science????).

Lol no, I don't even waist my time praying about things like this because I know there will always be athiestic Zealots like you who want to hold on to this tattered theory because the alternative (creation) is unacceptable to your doctrine that there is no god.


But don't worry... Your god is safe. There will always be an antecedent event you can attribute to god. Again, evolution says nothing about whether or not god exists. You can always say god started the whole process in motion. We don't yet know how life got started, but even if and when we do, we don't know how the universe got started, but if and when we do... You get my point. You will always be able to find something prior to our current knowledge and claim, 'god did it'.

Exactly so I am failing to understand why you keep insisting that my disbelief in the theory is because of my religious beliefs. :confused:

[QUOTE=tsila1777]Oh Cred, here you are. I thought you had other things to do with your life or some such thing as that. :confused:

Apperantly he doesn't have much of a life off line. Only lord knows how many other religious forums out there he is terrorising and harassing.


Sassyt you go! Cred can't even hold a candle to you. You make perfect sense in your debates, even I can understand some of it.. you are obviously well studied and educated or else you just have great genes.:)

Thank you! The sooner Credo realises this the sooner he will give up and just come to terms with the fact that he has beliefs like everyone else. :rolleyes:

You are correct that learning different facts (education), has little to do with evolution. It is our capacity to learn those facts that comes through evolution.



Serious question and I mean NO disrespect whatsoever, but... How on earth can you have a Bachelors in biology and confuse the very simple distinction between learning a series of facts and/or knowledge acquired from school, with the developmental capacity for intelligence?!! Do you honestly think we 'learn' intelligence in schools? C'mon... As for your other comments, see my response to Sassy.

So you were saved by the grace of god 3 years ago? I'd be genuinely interested in your experience if you want to PM me. I am not here to make fun of believers, but to stick up for science and education. It actually scares me that so many people in the U.S. don't accept commonplace science.

Peace.

I will go back to the simple statement by Cred that humanity gets smarter through evolution.

You are stating that the capacity for intelligence is evolution. A different proposition, which I won't get into at this time.

I would like to know if either you or Cred has attended a college or grad school?

It has been awhile for me, but I do not believe that Harvard or your local community college is going to accept you by stating "evolution has made me smart enough to be in your school ":)

Ask any doctor, lawyer, engineer, if they got into their professional school based because they got smarter through evolution :) :confused:


If one wants to reduce life to chance mutation and natural selection, and attribute all of life's wonders to a process that's only real principle is survival so be it...

As for me, all praise and glory belongs to God :D


In '05, by the world's standard I was "good," I think I have been more "good" than "bad" so I did not worry. But what I had done was brought to light, and I realized I was a sinner, a sinner in need of help, and in that moment I asked for God's mercy and forgiveness, and it was already granted. :D

I will go back to the simple statement by Cred that humanity gets smarter through evolution.

I'm not familiar with what Cred said, so I don't want to speak for him. I am only responding to what YOU said.


You are stating that the capacity for intelligence is evolution. A different proposition, which I won't get into at this time.

No, it is not a different proposition. We have developed a higher intelligence (brain capacity), through evolution and natural selection. What you seem to be defining as 'smarter', is individual knowledge or one's ability to perform on SAT tests. This has NOTHING to do with our species' overall intellectual acuity!


I would like to know if either you or Cred has attended a college or grad school?

Again, I'm not going to speak for Cred. I have an MBA from Northwestern U. focusing in business economics and finance. Before I switched majors, I took a biology course as an undergrad. I don't claim to be a scientist, but I find your inability to differentiate between 'learned knowledge' and intellectual capacity in an evolutionary role, to be embarrassing for someone who has ever taken a course that had any Theory of Evolution as part of the syllabus.

There are varying degrees of human intelligence, but even the dumbest human is still miles ahead of the next most intelligent organism known to man. Your point about colleges accepting applicants based on evolutionary 'smarts' is ridiculous and pure folly.

sassyT to tsila1777 :


Apperantly he doesnt have much of a life off line. Only lord knows how many other religious forums out there he is terrorising and harrassing.

thank you! the sooner Credo realises this the sooner he will give up and just come to terms with the fact that he has beliefs like everyone else.
"Apperantly, doesnt, terrorising, harrassing, realises".

Of course I have beliefs. But none of these is related to religion !

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

It is thought that our intelligence really took off after we became bipedal. With our hands now free, our brains grew to devise ever more creative and useful ways for carrying things and tool making, etc.

That is quite a statement without any fact to back it up - just your statement.
Where is the research that proves that bipedalism, the origin of which is not known, caused brain development?




Intelligence is not something that every animal is necessarily striving for. If you are a gazelle in the open plains of Africa and being stalked by a pride of lions, you would gladly trade any amount of intelligence for speed and agility. So intelligence isn't always the most optimal or efficient way to go. And one reason for this is because...

What is the selective advantage of incrementlly, over hundreds if not thousands of generations, "getting smarter" bit by bit?

If other animal species are so much older than us, for example sharks, why did evolution not make them more intellligent?

Why humans?

Why not even primates?

What gene mutations led to our intelligence?




We humans pay a very high price for our intelligence. Mainly, that we are born so premature. No other animal can afford to spend as much time as we do learning how to walk and feed itself. Due to our big craniums, a human female could never give birth to an infant mature and large enough to be walking and fending for itself in a matter of days or weeks. This means we have a very long childhood. No other animal can afford to fend for their young for such a long period of time. So again, intelligence is not something that every animal is striving for. It just so happens it is the evolutionary route we humans took and it worked out well for us. Unless of course, we end up blowing ourselves up through technology, or destroying our planet, both of which are very real possibilities.

Again, where is your proof that evolution caused humans to be intelligent?





Tails are mostly used for balance, although some types of monkeys do use them to grasp and carrying things. It's important to remember that everything in evolution comes with an inherent benefit and cost. Obviously, the cost of keeping tails outweighed the benefit for us.


tail = coccyx - provides the anchor point for our pelvic muscles so that when we laugh or stand or cough our pelvic contents don't prolapse [ or fall out ] ---- indeed a very useful function and benefit.


You will notice that I make no mention of religion. I just point out the facts. :D

We have developed a higher intelligence (brain capacity), through evolution and natural selection. What you seem to be defining as 'smarter', is individual knowledge or one's ability to perform on SAT tests. This has NOTHING to do with our species' overall intellectual acuity!


I have an MBA from Northwestern U. focusing in business economics and finance. Before I switched majors, I took a biology course as an undergrad. I don't claim to be a scientist, but I find your inability to differentiate between 'learned knowledge' and intellectual capacity in an evolutionary role, to be embarrassing for someone who has ever taken a course that had any Theory of Evolution as part of the syllabus.



So you took a biology course [ singular ] which was "Theory of Evolution."

You are mighty impressionable. ;)

Take anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, molecular biology and learn the wonders of life, and ask yourself how it all came about!

That is quite a statement without any fact to back it up - just your statement.
Where is the research that proves that bipedalism, the origin of which is not known, caused brain development?

Seriously sir (or madame)... READ SOME BOOKS! I have never claimed to be a scientist or a professor, or to have all the answers, but I have read many many books on the subject and tried to educate myself as a layman. If you took the time to do the same, you wouldn't need to ask all these silly questions. I call them silly, because you are only asking them out of personal incredulity. That is YOU--inthebox-- doesn't understand something, so how could it possibly be so?

There is much disagreement on how we became bipedal, which I know you'll love to hear, because you'll think it gives you ammunition to assert that evolution must be false, right? Wrong! There is no disagreement over evolution. None... Zilch... Nada... Fully 98% of all biologists accept evolution as F-A-C-T! There are however, gaps in knowledge and things like how we became bipedal, got our intelligence, etc. are not 100% understood. But there are some very good guesses, which you should take it upon yourself to read up on. It's actually very interesting stuff!




What is the selective advantage of incrementlly, over hundreds if not thousands of generations, "getting smarter" bit by bit?

This is what I meant. How can you take a biology course and not understand how incremental change works? I'm trying very hard not to stoop to negative comments, but can't help wondering where you took biology. The Discovery Institute?


If other animal species are so much older than us, for example sharks, why did evolution not make them more intellligent?

I've answered this already. Not every animal is evolving towards higher intelligence, nor do they need to. Sharks make their living just fine on the level of intelligence they have. Get rid of this notioin that evolution has some predestined goal or purpose in mind, with high intelligence as the end product. It does not. The only purpose is for an organism to pass on its genes. Sharks have been doing this perhaps better than any other living organism for millions of years. (don't quote me on the exact time, but rest assured it's significant).




Why humans?

I have already suggested bipedality. There can surely be other reasons.


Why not even primates?

Primates are perhaps the 2nd or 3rd next intelligent species next to our own.

Edit: Now you've got me sounding like an idiot! WE ARE primates! I was referring to monkeys. /edit


What gene mutations led to our intelligence?

Now you're really getting ridiculous. Just because scientist haven't been able to nail down the exact genetic change in DNA that occurred a couple hundred thousand years ago, that led to increased intelligence... This to you, constitutes sufficient reason to blow the entire theory of evolution out of the water? Please...




tail = coccyx - provides the anchor point for our pelvic muscles so that when we laugh or stand or cough our pelvic contents don't prolapse [ or fall out ] ---- indeed a very useful function and benefit.

Hmm. We DO still have a tail bone! You think maybe god just forgot to install our tails?



You will notice that I make no mention of religion. I just point out the facts. :D

I almost did. Right until the very end. ;)

So you took a biology course [ singular ] which was "Theory of Evolution."

You are mighty impressionable. ;)

Take anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, molecular biology and learn the wonders of life, and ask yourself how it all came about!

It was taxonomy. And yes, the prof DID go over ToE!

Again, where is your proof that evolution caused humans to be intelligent?
There is no such proof. Evolution does not cause anything. Evolution provides many up- and down-grades of older "models". Most of these variations soon become extinct as they do not support survival of the natural requirements at that time.

More intelligence clearly had advantages. As a slow bi-pedal you could for instance better prepare yourself against predator attacks instead of being eaten. You could plan. You got insight and develop a strategy. You learned how to defend yourself.

And the less intelligent one was - living under similar conditions - the more chance of getting your genes taken out of the reproductive cycle... So once on the road to higher intelligence it became a one-way street to the top.

That is how evolution works. Evolution has no direction. But it provides the way to feasible options, in which the best upgrade to adapt to natural requirements wins.

===

Note that the result of that increased average human intelligence (our increasing technology and our changing social tendencies) tends now-a-days to allow this elimination process of the weakest to be stopped - if not reversed.

And with that we see the weak point of evolution : the higher you specialize , the higher the chance that you can or will not upgrade to the natural requirement of changing habitats. You than as species simply go extinct, and nature tries another possibility.

With the consequences of the current global warming this possibility of extinction seems to have arrived for a lot of lifeforms, and humanity as species is not excluded of that...

:rolleyes:

·

Hmm. We DO still have a tail bone! You think maybe god just forgot to install our tails?

You forgot... some folks are still born with full-fledged tails. Not much of one but a tail nonetheless. Guess god remembers some... ;)

You're right on antis using questions on the mechanics to throw doubt on the established science. It's the 'teach the controversy' strategy the ID crowd put together for their 'Wedge Strategy.'

One idea on how our 'smarts' improved was when we started eating meat - specifically bone marrow. It's high in fat and the energy was needed for 'growing' brains. (Tho I suppose that's a bit of an egg/chicken question <G>) And when the climate in Africa changed and forests became savannahs, standing to see over the grass may have led to standing for good.

The point is, we can rarely, if at all, point to one single change that results in a major evolutionary adaptation. Almost all are accumulative. As to why we're smarter, or became bipedal - my opinion is that no one 'cause' will be found. There will be a number of them for every big change.



-

Take anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, molecular biology and learn the wonders of life, and ask yourself how it all came about!


Every one of those courses acknowledges evolution as its founding principle. (At least every accredited one.)

Every one of those courses acknowledges evolution as its founding principle. (At least every accredited one.)


I have taken these, have any of you ?

They are scientific fact based courses

None are based on evolution as a founding principal.

Is electronegativity or gravity or osmosis or the genetic code caused or proven by evolution?

The evolutionists [ lob cred vh1 etc.] cannot answer the questions I pose, so they resort to personal attacks.

That is not scientific. ;)

I'm still waiting for links or peer reviewed journal articles to back up your assertations, otherwise, all you state are just unproven claims based on your faith in evolution and what you were led to believe.

... all you state are just unproven claims based on your faith in evolution and what you were led to believe.
Of course all religious based wild claims do not fall under that category, I presume ?

And why do you state "faith in evolution"? I personally accept the scientific data that supports the Evolution Theory for the greater part. What is the percentage of scientific data that supports the creation claim ?

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

The evolutionists [ lob cred vh1 etc.] cannot answer the questions I pose, so they resort to personal attacks.

Exactly what IS your question? Which line in the genetic code had a mutation some 265,367 years and 238 days ago to an apelike animal that caused intelligence to flourish? What? Can't tell me? AHA! Told you evolution was just another dumb faith based belief!

You win. :(

... Which line in the genetic code had a mutation some 265,367 years and 238 days ago ....
No , no , no... Not so wide : only that mutation 265,367 years, 238 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes, and 32 seconds ago , of course !

:D

·

Yes, I have taken some of those courses. I also bother to read a lot. And every one uses evolution as a fundamental principle. And there's growing use of evol ideas in the humanities as in why we dance and sing.

Here are 3 links, each with a number of their own. Just how educated are you willing to be, spend time on.. The last has numerous links to specific anti-evo disinfo.

Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)


National Center for Science Education (http://www.natcenscied.org/)


Misquoting Evolution | Rob Lowe (http://www.roberthenrylowe.com/misquoting_evolution)



-

Of course I have beliefs.



·


Hahahaa.. lol... loll YES YES! :D :D :D :D HOOOOHOOO!! VICTORY!!

PHEW! ***SIGH****Finally (1043 posts later)! Credo has finally admitted he has BELIEFS!. WOW!
Took him long enough but my patience and hard work finally paid off. I never thought I would see the day but I kept hope alive and it was all worth it!

Everybody, Credo has done the unexpected and admitted to having BELIEFS. Hopefully his coming out of the closet will help him stop harassing others about their beliefs. We can only hope, one step at a time.

My work here is done! ;)

Yes, I have taken some of those courses. I also bother to read a lot. And every one uses evolution as a fundamental principle. And there's growing use of evol ideas in the humanities as in why we dance and sing.

Here are 3 links, each with a number of their own. Just how educated are you willing to be, spend time on...? The last has numerous links to specific anti-evo disinfo.

Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)


National Center for Science Education (http://www.natcenscied.org/)


Misquoting Evolution | Rob Lowe (http://www.roberthenrylowe.com/misquoting_evolution)



-

All this is based on speculation, not solid evidence.

Exactly what IS your question? Which line in the genetic code had a mutation some 265,367 years and 238 days ago to an apelike animal that caused intelligence to flourish? What? Can't tell me? AHA!! Told ya evolution was just another dumb faith based belief!

You win. :(

Another vicotory! WOW today is a good day, first Credo admits he has beliefs and now lobroster admits macro evolution depends on faith. WOW this is too good! :p :D

Another vicotory! WOW today is a good day, first Credo admits he has beliefs and now lobroster admits macro evolution depends on faith. WOW this is too good! :p :D

... And to think he argued with me for three pages that he can not possibly have any beliefs
That he accepts things not believe when I tried to get the point across that there is a difference between believe and believe IN

Could not or refused to comprehend that believe can and does mean

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :eek:


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/evolution-origin-universe-religion-236939-2.html#post1148394

hahahaa..lol...loll YES YES!! :D :D :D :D HOOOOHOOO!!! VICTORY!!!!

PHEW!! ***SIGH****Finally! Credo has finally admitted he has BELIEFS!..WOW!
Took him long enough but my patience and hard work finally paid off. I never thought i would see the day but i kept hope alive and it was all worth it!

Everybody, Credo has done the unexpected and admitted to having BELIEFS. Hopefully his coming out of the closet will help him stop harassing others about their beliefs. We can only hope, one step at a time.

My work here is done! ;)

Good work, so glad to see this! :p I wish there was a smiley for 'patting you on the back' .

sassyT to tsila1777 :


"Apperantly, doesnt, terrorising, harrassing, realises".

Of course I have beliefs. But none of these is related to religion !

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Cred, if this were a grammar debate, or a spelling bee, I would understand your harassment of SassyT with this avoidance factor masquerading in infantile behavior... but if you go back and reread some of your own posts... you make quite a few mistakes too. In fact, whole ‘sentences’ that are in fact not sentences at all, because a sentence is supposed to express a complete thought.

However, avoidance is what you best is it not?

So glad to hear you admit you do have beliefs... made my day, fellow.

A belief is faith, conviction, and/or opinion, not related to facts, religious or otherwise.



Therefore, you do have faith in something that is without proof. Why then do you insist that you will not believe it until you see it?:confused:

Cred, if this were a grammar debate, or a spelling bee, I would understand your harassment of SassyT with this avoidance factor masquerading in infantile behavior ...but if you go back and reread some of your own posts...you make quite a few mistakes too. In fact, whole 'sentences' that are in fact not sentences at all, because a sentence is supposed to express a complete thought.

However, avoidance is what you best is it not?

So glad to hear you admit you do have beliefs.... made my day, fellow.

A belief is faith, conviction, and/or opinion, not related to facts, religious or otherwise.

Therefore, you do have faith in something that is without proof. Why then do you insist that you will not believe it until you see it?:confused:
I am sure that Cred will either reply to your post by correcting your spelling/grammar errors or he will say to get back on topic even after he has been off topic himself...
As you said it is his avoidance tactics.

All this is based on speculation, not solid evidence.

What would you accept as solid evidence?

Cred writes: I personally accept the scientific data that supports the Evolution Theory for the greater part.


I personally accept (which mean believes) the scientific data (men suppositioning) that supports the Evolution Theory (premise or guess) for the greater part. I have not a clue…for the greater part of what, the data or the theory.


The fact that it is not 'religious', which I have no idea what your definition of religious is, does not matter at all. If people can make gods of cows then people can make gods of unproven ideas. Indeed, I suppose anything one believes in can be a god can it not?




Cred admits he believes in something neither he nor anyone else has ever proven. Nor ever will, but he's a believer!

I am sure that Cred will either reply to your post by correcting your spelling/grammar errors or he will say to get back on topic even after he has been off topic himself......
as you said it is his avoidance tactics.
Yes, it is. And he does avoid the hard questions by saying the post was too long. ;)

What a cop out!

Does he really 'believe' he is so clever that people are unaware of his petty tactics?

As I said in reply 558 I went round and round about believe/accept vs believe IN
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religio...ml#post1148394 and he still insisted he has no beliefs.
NOW he claimed he does :confused:
No need to wonder why his posts get up into the 500 to 600 posts range!!!

Cred is a bore, and I am tired of combating with him. I only wanted to congratulate you on finally getting him to admit he believes. His icon is so disrespectful, but that only goes to show how full of bullsh*t he is. Also how A** in nine he is…………which he could not figure out what that meant, as “English is only his third language”…and then asked if I knew, and I am the one who wrote it.

It is not so difficult, just say it quickly, asinine. The A** would have been the funny part if only he could have understood. Two whammies in one, but he missed it, poor Cred.



Peace and love, my friend, keep up the good work!



Wado,

I don't see how this pretense of dancing on Credo's intellectual grave in his own thread, calling him bad words, and saying that he is ignorant or uneducated, when he clearly is educated, advances any particular line of argument.

What "good work" did you do?

Thread Closed