we have, we used to be much shorter and also what about the apendexviper, how come in <10,000 years, we have seen no evolution in humans?advances in technology yes, but no evolution..
we have, we used to be much shorter and also what about the apendex
Go read a biography of Charles Darwin, and you will come back in here, read over any post you once had against anti-evolution, and think to yourself, "Wow, I'm a dumbass." Not insulting you, simply saying, if you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe that there is a human population.
How would becoming taller in anyway make us more advantageous for our newer environment?
Can you give me a source of information on him, besides wikipedia.
I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in a human population
Well if we didn't evolve from apes, what DID we evolve from?
How would becoming taller in anyway make us more advantageous for our newer environment?
imnotcrazy said:Can you give me a source of information on him, besides wikipedia.
imnotcrazy357 said:"I do not believe in evolution"
I do not find being tall sexually appealing, it is more of an oppinionYou can see farther, have a height advantage over opponents, and seem more sexually appealing to females, if you're male.
Google usually does the trick.
From the environment I was raised in, and the facts that have been taught to me from being snet to private schoolsWhy not?
nashy2906 is 100% correct. Evolution is all around us, and ever apart of us.
Explain the appendix, tonsules, even the TAIL bone...all are useless because we have evolved away from needing them.
As controversial as this topic is, its actually pointless. Those too immersed in their religion will never see the world for what it really is. I myself am jewish, and I dont even belive in most stuff, including god.
To bring religion into any subject is a falasy.
shalom
I do not find being tall sexually appealing, it is more of an oppinion
imnotcrazy357 said:being short lets you get into smaller places
more nimble and agile for sports, and squeezing through crowds
imnotcrazy357 said:From the environment I was raised in, and the facts that have been taught to me from being snet to private schools
imnotcrazy357 said:No, you explain the appendix, tonsules, even the TAIL bone if we have "evolved" away from needing them, then why do we still have them?
I love people who come into these topics with no regard for what has already been posted, post something and then never come back, so I think I shall make one of these random posts
found this in my old science book
![]()
therefore the world can't be very old.
also 4,000+ religions all state that there has been a world wide flood saving one family
News to me, lolAnd statistically, women are more attracted to taller men.
Yes, but I'm refering to now adays, even 500 years ago we were shorter then we are now correct? and if so I was reffering to the point of us getting taller in the past 500 years.And when hunting your prey, as our ancestors did for the past 500,000 years, being short gets you stepped on. A tall person has a better chance of looking more intimidating, and having a chance to attack.
Then convincingly argue that evolution is a fallacy, and, at the same time, explain how we got here, etc.
Evolution works through natural selection: Those who are stronger are more likely to reproduce, and thus pass on their genes, and those who are weaker die. Now, the death of the weak individuals is what removes genes from our gene pool. Yet, the appendix, tonsils, and the tail bone are not impediments to our survival. So, why would we have lost them?
Guess what the fallacy is? Not every single person produces two children, always. That would require each family to always produce four children. Always.
News to me, lol
imnotcrazy357 said:Yes, but I'm refering to now adays, even 500 years ago we were shorter then we are now correct? and if so I was reffering to the point of us getting taller in the past 500 years.
imnotcrazy357 said:I really wish I could, but the teacher left my school that I usually had these types of discussions with, I do not have many of the paper left from His class, and I've been trying to do that =p
imnotcrazy358 said:because the person I quoted that from, stated they we're evolved to no use? If so then they served function before.
If they are of no use, and natural selection is correct, then wouldn't they be just dead weight?
imnotcrazy357 said:producing 4 children in 200 years is very likely
viper, how come in <10,000 years, we have seen no evolution in humans?
advances in technology yes, but no evolution..
Your probably young (under 18) and have been in the public school system telling you that evolution is fact. It is also easier for someone without a religion to say "oh we evolved" and go on with your life then believing that anything else put you here.

