[lobrobster]

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. ;)

[lobrobster]

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!

[Credendovidis]

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:

·

[WVHiflyer]

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.



-

[WVHiflyer]

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.)

[inthebox]

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.

[Credendovidis]

... 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

·

[lobrobster]

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. :(

[Credendovidis]

... 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

·

[WVHiflyer]

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


National Center for Science Education


Misquoting Evolution | Rob Lowe



-

[sassyT]

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! ;)

[sassyT]

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


National Center for Science Education


Misquoting Evolution | Rob Lowe



-

All this is based on speculation, not solid evidence.

[sassyT]

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

[N0help4u]

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/religi...ml#post1148394

[tsila1777]

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' .

[tsila1777]

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:

[N0help4u]

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.

[asking]

All this is based on speculation, not solid evidence.

What would you accept as solid evidence?

[tsila1777]

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!

[tsila1777]

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?