[magprob]

Professor Poopfossil believes in evilution.
He tells people, "Once I was an amoeba so very thin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a jungle tree. Now I am a teacher of insanity."

[red_cartoon]

Professor Poopfossil believes in evilution.
He tells people, "Once I was an amoeba so very thin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a jungle tree. Now I am a teacher of insanity."

You sound like some one who does not really like animals.

[magprob]

Hummm, maybe there is something to this evolution thing after all. Tell me, when a monkey turns into a man, does it take him a long time for his brain to develop?

[jem02081]

Hummm, maybe there is something to this evolution thing after all. Tell me, when a monkey turns into a man, does it take him a long time for his brain to develop?

Yeah, as you might expect some are faster and some are slower. You can spot the slower ones because their first reaction is to deny where they came from.

Some even turn into internet trolls …hard to believe that trolls the product of intelligent design.

Back to biology?

[magprob]

The Neanderthal (IPA: /niːˈændərθɑːl/, also with /neɪ-/, and /-tɑːl/) or Neandertal was a species of the Homo genus (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)[1] that inhabited Europe and parts of western and central Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago.[2] By 130,000 years ago, full blown Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Asia, although they did not reach extinction in Europe until 33,000 to 24,000 years ago, perhaps 15,000 years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe.[3][4][5] It is believed that the population of Neanderthals was never much more than 10,000 individuals.[6]

Genesis 6

1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,
2)That the sons of God saw the daughters were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
4)There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

"And also after that."
The ones that are still here are the evilutionist. If you think you are of that ilk, fine. It is all based on lies to cover the real truth. That truth is in the bible.
The real truth explains the age old struggle between good and evil on earth, its beginnings and its end.

[NeedKarma]

It is all based on lies to cover the real truth. That truth is in the bible.

So the scientists are involved in one big conspiracy to fabricate evidence that contradicts the 'real truth' which based on faith?

[magprob]

No, I am saying the scientist don't know what the hell they are talking about since there is not enough spiritual mixed with science. They have over looked some very important facts. Has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with closed minds and those minds dictating the total of public knowledge.

[red_cartoon]

Genesis 6

1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,
2)That the sons of God saw the daughters were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
4)There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

When the early Aryans came to the indian-subcontinent, they found many dark-skinned, blunt-nosed, black-haired tribes living in those lands. Very much different from the fair-skinned, sharp-nosed and somewhat coloreful haired Aryans that they were. So they decided to call these people monsters, devils, crooks, monkeys and other things like this. These are references from the Vedic scriptures. Any interested person can read the Vedas to verify this.

In some biblical stories, the Philistines ( people of a land called Philistine ) are villains. Depicted with somewhat monster like attributes. The word 'philistine' is used by some english speakers and christians as a bad word up to this day. The meaning is probably someone unsophisticated and brutal. I do not know the exact meaning but I am sure I am pretty close to it. Once I read in a novel that, a man wishes to tear down a bible into four smaller parts for the ease of reading. But his sister calls him a 'Philistine' for brooding such and evil idea in his head.

The Nazi's killed a lot of Jews during the world war. They thought Jews are not really humans. It's OK to kill a lot of them, run whatever experiment you like on them and do other evil things to them.

Have anyone seen the movie ROOTs ? Remember the part where Kizzy is in here teens and her master's daughter asks her mom whether their slaves do have feelings like "love" and her mother replies that they are close to animals, they only feel pains and things like that, not sophisticated things like "love".

It is a very common trend to name people you don't like as "non-human". I don't think the giants of the biblical reference you have shown were actually giants. Most probably a neighboring non-semite nation who happened to be have higher average height.

[asking]

Can you show the links to prove [a lineage of hominids]?

Absolutely. Which link do you want? Australopithecus amanesis? Australopithecus afarensis? A.africanus? A. robustus? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo erectus? Homo sapiens? It all depends on how far back you want to go and whether you want to argue about which ones were direct ancestors and which ones merely "uncles and aunts."

for example: "Clearly, factors other than DNA sequence are necessary for such "punctuated" duplicative transposition events to occur during genome evolution. During the divergence of the human/great-ape lineage from the Old World monkey lineage, the genome MAY have been particularly permissive to segmental duplication events. The scientists SPECULATE that the molecular driving forces behind this "punctuated" duplicative activity may have been changes in transcriptional status or chromatin conformation"

So? This in no way undermines the idea of human evolution. Whoever you are quoting is saying that when the lineage of humans and other great apes (which it clearly acknowledges as a real group) split off from the old world monkeys, the human/ape genome experienced duplications. That is, some stretches of DNA doubled. (Like repeating a sentence.) Duplication is a well-known mechanism for evolutionary change. Its been demonstrated in other groups of animals and plants. This writer is saying that some unnamed scientists speculate that duplication might have allowed a large change in a relatively short amount of time (i.e. Gould's punctuated equilibrium). In other words, this is a speculation about the details of the evolution of both humans and apes. Nowhere does your paragraph suggest that there's any doubt that both humans and apes evolved over time from earlier ancestors.

The words may and speculate, I purposely emphasize. Those are not words demonstrating FACT.

Inbox, The words "may" and "speculate" here refer to whether the duplication events in fact allowed the large changes that we know occurred to occur. (I.e. We know large changes occurred. What made those large changes happen? MAYBE it was duplication of the DNA.) The words you've seized on do not refer to whether large changes occurred, and they do not refer to whether we evolved.

The dna of humans and apes may be very similar but that does not prove they came from the same ancestor.

In fact, it does, as much as anything can be proved in science. By comparing the anatomy of dogs and wolves, we can infer that they are closely related. By comparing their DNA, we find that the DNA of dogs and wolves is more similar than the DNA of dogs and cats or dogs and humans. This is because dogs are more closely related to wolves than to cats or humans. It is a basic fact of biology that similarities in DNA are an indication of relatedness.

The same evidence is used in criminal trials and in paternity cases. The fact that similarities in DNA sequences indicates relatedness is so well accepted that we decide legal cases based on it. And nearly all modern biology depends on accepting this fact, including a lot of current medical research. That doesn't mean there's no room for error, but it does mean that similarity in DNA is one VERY GOOD measure of relatedness. DNA fingerprinting is much more accurate than real old fashioned fingerprints. Your DNA tells us who your mother and father are, who your siblings are, your grandparents and cousins--and your ancestors from millions of years ago as well.

[charlotte234s]

No, I am saying the scientist don't know what the hell they are talking about since there is not enough spiritual mixed with science. They have over looked some very important facts. Has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with closed minds and those minds dictating the total of public knowledge.

Not enough spiritual with science? What proves the spiritual information?

[magprob]

What proves the spiritual information? That's easy, the answer is: Everything you have never experienced, including LOVE.

Am I still stuck in Charlottes web? Probably.

[stonewilder]

I believe in some ways every living creature has evolved in various ways, I do not however believe that just because our genetic makeup might resemble an ape that means we evolved from them. It is strictly a matter of opinion and you can decide for yourself if you believe your distant ancestors were apes if you like.

[asking]

Whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun goes around the Earth is not strictly a matter of opinion. You can actually go out and look and see that the scientists of several hundred years ago did their math right and, in fact, the Earth goes around the Sun, just like they figured out.

When it comes to science--and evolution is definitely a science--it's not opinion, but evidence that determines what is true. It's possible to make predictions based on the facts and theories that make up evolution, and if the predictions are correct (and they are), we can be reasonably sure that evolution is correct (it is).

Of course, anyone can decide they don't believe the conclusions of science, that they don't believe that nuclear bombs work the way physicists say they do, or that vaccines don't work the way immunologists say they do, or that evolution doesn't work the way biologists say it does. But that's not science, it's just opinion or belief.

I can say that my dog is a kind of cat because I say so. But that doesn't make it so. It's just an odd assertion. Saying that humans didn't evolve is like that. If you don't know enough science to know any better, it just sounds odd to someone who does know the science, as if you'd denied being related to your own mother. No one can make anyone believe anything they don't want to.

[stonewilder]

I didn't say anything about the sun or nuclear bombs, I was talking about your ape ancestors.

[asking]

So was I. Sorry to confuse you.

[inthebox]

Absolutely. Which link do you want? Australopithecus amanesis? Australopithecus afarensis? A.africanus? A. robustus? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo erectus? Homo sapiens? It all depends on how far back you want to go and whether you want to argue about which ones were direct ancestors and which ones merely "uncles and aunts."



So? This in no way undermines the idea of human evolution. Whoever you are quoting is saying that when the lineage of humans and other great apes (which it clearly acknowledges as a real group) split off from the old world monkeys, the human/ape genome experienced duplications. That is, some stretches of DNA doubled. (Like repeating a sentence.) Duplication is a well-known mechanism for evolutionary change. Its been demonstrated in other groups of animals and plants. This writer is saying that some unnamed scientists speculate that duplication might have allowed a large change in a relatively short amount of time (i.e., Gould's punctuated equilibrium). In other words, this is a speculation about the details of the evolution of both humans and apes. Nowhere does your paragraph suggest that there's any doubt that both humans and apes evolved over time from earlier ancestors.



Inbox, The words "may" and "speculate" here refer to whether the duplication events in fact allowed the large changes that we know occurred to occur. (I.e., We know large changes occurred. What made those large changes happen? MAYBE it was duplication of the DNA.) The words you've seized on do not refer to whether large changes occurred, and they do not refer to whether we evolved.



In fact, it does, as much as anything can be proved in science. By comparing the anatomy of dogs and wolves, we can infer that they are closely related. By comparing their DNA, we find that the DNA of dogs and wolves is more similar than the DNA of dogs and cats or dogs and humans. This is because dogs are more closely related to wolves than to cats or humans. It is a basic fact of biology that similarities in DNA are an indication of relatedness.

The same evidence is used in criminal trials and in paternity cases. The fact that similarities in DNA sequences indicates relatedness is so well accepted that we decide legal cases based on it. And nearly all modern biology depends on accepting this fact, including a lot of current medical research. That doesn't mean there's no room for error, but it does mean that similarity in DNA is one VERY GOOD measure of relatedness. DNA fingerprinting is much more accurate than real old fashioned fingerprints. Your DNA tells us who your mother and father are, who your siblings are, your grandparents and cousins--and your ancestors from millions of years ago as well.

"infer" is not proof - it is putting a hypothesis forward.

When speaking of dna similarities or physical commonalities [ homology ] - these are factual observations and ,yes, it indicates "relatedness," BUT
It does not prove origin.

It is like looking at blueprints - say of diffferent buildings to continue my analogy - and observing what they have in common, but how did these blueprints come about in a natural manner?

The major question for evolution is:

How did these blueprints / the genetic code come about? The scientific facts demonstrating the origin of dna are not known or experimentally proven or reproducible.

If evolution does not have the answer it is in fact a THEORY.




Regarding dogs and wolves. This is a good example.

Why are there not spontaneously "evolved" native chihuahuas or poodles or pomeranians or any other breed that can be traced back to wolves WITHOUT
Direct human knowledge and manipulation?

[charlotte234s]

What proves the spiritual information? That's easy, the answer is: Everything you have never experienced, including LOVE.

Am I still stuck in Charlottes web? Probably.


Love isn't science, it doesn't prove theories, it's something totally irrelevant in this conversation. Why are you so angry and bitter? Why can't you spell experience?


Ugh, anyway.

I think the personal attacks need to end, this should be a mature discussion, not a huge fight with people berating each other.

[inthebox]

List of number of chromosomes of various organisms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how does evolution explain acquiring "new genes" or more genetic material?

How come mosquitos have 6 chromosomes, humans 46, algae 146, amoeba 13?

You would think there would be a direct linear progression:
the older more primitive more simple organisms would have less chromosomes than more complex, more advanced, more recent organisms, but there is no correlation.

If algae came before humans how did they get 146 chromosomes in the first place?


genome.gov | 2000 Release: Fruitfly Genome Sequenced

the fruit fly's genome has 165 milliion base pairs
the mouse and human genome consist of approximately 3 billion base pairs.

It took mankind this long to get this smart to figure out that genes are the key to life. With the aid of computers and working in collaboration, they have deciphered the genome.

Do you believe that the genetic code of even the fruit fly was due to chemicals randomly interacting with each other and whatever environment they were in even given 4 billion years?

Realistically what are the chances?

How does evolution "prove " this.

[red_cartoon]

Genes are a kind of coding.

If you have any idea of computer programming then you'll know that bigger codes does not always mean efficient/powerful/strong/better programs.

[jem02081]

You want answers?
Let’s start at the top.

how does evolution explain acquiring "new genes" or more genetic material?.

There are many ways with many books written about each of then. Le’s start with two methods that came to my mind.
1. Gene duplication. There are numerous examples in the human genome. Here are a couple of which you might be familiar with. Look up why people are red green colorblind or what causes (alpha or beta) thalassemia. Of course, this isn’t restricted to humans.
2. Gene transfer. Have you heard of MRSA? This is an example of horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes. This also happens outside of the human influenced biosphere, but human are less interested in reading about that. Influenza H5N1? This is an example of the genetic recombination of genes between different types of viruses. I can give you human examples as well (endogenous retroviuses).

How come mosquitos have 6 chromosomes, humans 46, algae 146, amoeba 13?

You would think there would be a direct linear progression:
the older more primitive more simple organisms would have less chromosomes than more complex, more advanced, more recent organisms, but there is no correlation.

This question has been asked & answered and the answers aren’t controversial. But you need to be a bit of a science historian to remember when this question was first asked and answered. It been a long time since someone thought that “higher organisms” should have more chromosomes. It used to be mentioned in the first chapter of genetics textbooks, but I haven’t looked in a while.

An interesting question (with a convincing answer) is why all of the great apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have only 46.

It took mankind this long to get this smart to figure out that genes are the key to life. With the aid of computers and working in collaboration, they have deciphered the genome.

“genes are the key to life.” is an interesting phase. There are whole schools of the thought in evolutionary biology which start from that point. Ever hear of the term “selfish gene”.

Realistically what are the chances?

Chances are zero if the world is ten thousand years old & most people who have studied this think the chance is almost a certainty if the earth is billions of year old.

Any questions on these topics?

If don’t want your questions answered then why are you lurking here?