No such thing as evolution

[Krypton6]

Isnt that just a question of genetics? Some people have large heads some have small. Most africans have a big head, does that make them undevoloped? No they just hapend to have larger back heads!
You were created with with perhaps a small head, while some of those who lived 10.000 years ago were created with larger heads.

Also how can you compare a few skulls (suposedly from humans 10.000 years ago), with the skull size of the present humans? You cannot determine the skull size of ancient humans out from a few skulls that you have found!
I am shure that many people today have big heads compared to others, but how can you determine which is the right size? Smaller skulls do not give us any advantages, if anything then it is the larger and stronger skulls that we are in need of.

Australopithocene were not humans! How can you know for shure that they "gained" the ability to walk, and not created with the ability to walk.
If they gained the ability then how? Did one ape just suddenly start rising up?
And even if this ape started rising up, why would its children rise up, and their children and so on... Those new apes would have to go through exactly what the original ape went through before being capeable of walking.

So if I start crawling, will I change my genetics? The ability to walk could not have bin something that they gained, it could only be an ability that they were created with.

How did life start then? Water, Clay and lightning somehow created a complicated cell?

 

[TJ]

hold on ill try to find a picture of past and present skull sizes.

 

[Krypton6]

How? Only a few old skulls have ever bin found. Do you count the skullsize of a few skulls for the general size of the whole civilisation?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Isnt that just a question of genetics? Some people have large heads some have small. Most africans have a big head, does that make them undevoloped? No they just hapend to have larger back heads!
You were created with with perhaps a small head, while some of those who lived 10.000 years ago were created with larger heads.

It's basically the average of a few thousand skulls examined today compared with the average of skulls that are from 10,000 years ago.

Also how can you compare a few skulls (suposedly from humans 10.000 years ago), with the skull size of the present humans? You cannot determine the skull size of ancient humans out from a few skulls that you have found!
I am shure that many people today have big heads compared to others, but how can you determine which is the right size? Smaller skulls do not give us any advantages, if anything then it is the larger and stronger skulls that we are in need of.

It's the average size that was compared.

There aren't a lot of people today who are prevented from passing on their genes due to their skull size.

Perhaps this will help: http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/03.07/01-skulls.html

Australopithocene were not humans! How can you know for shure that they "gained" the ability to walk, and not created with the ability to walk.

Well, it seems that in nature, species can "gain" abilities, attributes, etc. without being endowed with them.

If they gained the ability then how? Did one ape just suddenly start rising up?

That's probably the reason. The apes were moving out of the trees and into the grasslands, so those that stood upright had less exposure to the sun, a far better view of the surrounding area (for spotting predators and food), and were able to use their hands for other activities.

And even if this ape started rising up, why would its children rise up, and their children and so on... Those new apes would have to go through exactly what the original ape went through before being capeable of walking.

Well, a lot of it was probably learned behavior, but as the millennia wore on, those that had a bone structure more suited to standing up would have an easier time of it.

So if I start crawling, will I change my genetics? The ability to walk could not have bin something that they gained, it could only be an ability that they were created with.

Crawling will not change your genetics, however, if we select for those who are best able to crawl, after thousands of years, humanity will be very adept at crawling.

How did life start then? Water, Clay and lightning somehow created a complicated cell?

Clay probably was involved, and possibly lightening. They didn't form a cell immediately, though. General consensus is that extremely simple self-replicating molecules were the first to form. These increased in complexity, were able to make use of lipids in the ocean to form a cell wall, etc.

 

[Krypton6]

It's basically the average of a few thousand skulls examined today compared with the average of skulls that are from 10,000 years ago.

It's the average size that was compared.

Well how do you know what the avarage skull size was 10.000 years ago? Just because a few skulls found had slightly larger skulls does not mean that everybody did. Its a matter of genetics, and fact is that our skull size have not changed. Some just have larger heads while some have smaller.

Well, it seems that in nature, species can "gain" abilities, attributes, etc. without being endowed with them.

They can but the gaining ability is something that they have to experience their way to, and not actully something that they auto matically do from birth, as a result of their genetics. So the fact that they started rising up, did not change their genetics.

That's probably the reason. The apes were moving out of the trees and into the grasslands, so those that stood upright had less exposure to the sun, a far better view of the surrounding area (for spotting predators and food), and were able to use their hands for other activities.

I dont see how standing up could possibly protect their body from sun exposure, standing up will expose you to the exact same amount of sunlight as when crawling. If anything, crawling would protect you a bit more.
True, standing up gives you a better view, but at the same time you would lose the ability to climb, to catch your food, to survive and to hide.

Standing up means more bad than good (at least for them)!

Well, a lot of it was probably learned behavior, but as the millennia wore on, those that had a bone structure more suited to standing up would have an easier time of it.

But still rising up would not have been the smartest choice for them to take!
If it took evolution soo long to finaly reach an ape that started rising up, what makes you think that another ape would shortly after do the same?
In total and reality, just a few apes ever learned to stand up, it could not have bin a general thing for the specie!

Also just a small question that I am wondering: What makes you think that Australopithecine's were standing?

Crawling will not change your genetics, however, if we select for those who are best able to crawl, after thousands of years, humanity will be very adept at crawling.

By ''best able to crawl'' what do you mean?
At the bottom line your saying that crawling changes the genetics!

Clay probably was involved, and possibly lightening. They didn't form a cell immediately, though. General consensus is that extremely simple self-replicating molecules were the first to form. These increased in complexity, were able to make use of lipids in the ocean to form a cell wall, etc.

See it is this "probably" that makes the theory of evolution, a theory and not actully fact. There are to many "probablie's" in the theory of evolution, to much is unexplained!

 

[MosDef]

totally agree with Krypton

all you evolution kids can come up with are "possibilities" aka. piss poor excuses to try to legitimatize the completely illogical theory that is evolution

 

[Bullnich]

No time to explain, but you guys are fucking retarded if you think that evolution isn't real. Evolution is real, god is fake.

 

[MosDef]

No time to explain, but you guys are fucking retarded if you think that evolution isn't real. Evolution is real, god is fake.

real convincing

 

[Krypton6]

The theory is ridiculous, the basic behind it states that a complicated cell was created out of nothing!

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well how do you know what the avarage skull size was 10.000 years ago? Just because a few skulls found had slightly larger skulls does not mean that everybody did. Its a matter of genetics, and fact is that our skull size have not changed. Some just have larger heads while some have smaller.

If you find a lot of skulls, and they are generally larger than today's skulls, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the trend is towards smaller skulls.

They can but the gaining ability is something that they have to experience their way to, and not actully something that they auto matically do from birth, as a result of their genetics. So the fact that they started rising up, did not change their genetics.

Mutations can result in species having different capabilities. For example, if there is a genetic mutation that causes ones hip bones to be oriented differently, you might be able to stand much more easily.

I dont see how standing up could possibly protect their body from sun exposure, standing up will expose you to the exact same amount of sunlight as when crawling. If anything, crawling would protect you a bit more.

It's the open plain. Lying down maximizes your exposure to the powerful African sun when it's at its peak.

True, standing up gives you a better view, but at the same time you would lose the ability to climb, to catch your food, to survive and to hide.

Standing up means more bad than good (at least for them)!

Standing up was actually a boon for them. The forests were shrinking, and they had to live on the plains. The advantage of being able to see further simply outweighed any other possible disadvantages.

Also just a small question that I am wondering: What makes you think that Australopithecine's were standing?

That is what fossils of them indicate - that their hip bone system was designed for upright travel rather than on all fours.

At the bottom line your saying that crawling changes the genetics!

No! I am not saying that at all! Chance genetic mutations produce variations in the species. Some of the individuals will have genetic variations that give them a survival advantage, allowing them to pass on their genes! It is the backbone of evolution!

See it is this "probably" that makes the theory of evolution, a theory and not actully fact. There are to many "probablie's" in the theory of evolution, to much is unexplained!

A theory is a well-substantiated amalgamation of facts, evidence, predictions, and explanations that is logically self-consistent. To call evolution a theory is quite generous on your part.

it states that a complicated cell was created out of nothing!

No, it doesn't.

 

[Krypton6]

If you find a lot of skulls, and they are generally larger than today's skulls, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the trend is towards smaller skulls.

You havent found many skulls or fossils! And even finding the avarage skullsize of living humans would be hard. 6000 humans for example cannot talk on behalf of nearly 7 Billion humans.

Mutations can result in species having different capabilities. For example, if there is a genetic mutation that causesones hip bones to be oriented differently, you might be able to stand much more easily.

Yes but that is only 1 mutation for only 1 ape! Also it is very unlikely that a ordinary female monkey would find 'him' attractive and mate with 'him'. And lets supose that this one up rising monkey finally somehow managed to find a mate, now what are the chances for his mutation to pass on? The chances for this mutation to be passed on through generations and generations, til the point of where a bunch of monkeys have all learned to walk, is very very very unlikely.

It's the open plain. Lying down maximizes your exposure to the powerful African sun when it's at its peak.

There is absolutely no difference between crawling and walking, regarding sun exposure. Both ways you will have half of you body being exposed to the sunlight.

Standing up was actually a boon for them. The forests were shrinking, and they had to live on the plains. The advantage of being able to see further simply outweighed any other possible disadvantages.

How come the forests were shrinking? Could they not just move to another area? On a open plain filled with all sort of animals, they would need the ability to run, to hide and their flexibility. The view only gives them 2 advantages, they can find their food easier and they can find the dangerous animals easier. But lets supose that they have just found a animal to hunt down, now what? They cant just run after it! A walking animal has no chance to catch a 4 legged animal, and that is a major disatvantage. They can locate the dangerous animals and retreat, but what is most important? Being able to easier look out for threats or being able to find and hunt down your food.

That is what fossils of them indicate - that their hip bone system was designed for upright travel rather than on all fours.

Well so do we, but it does not mean that we cannot crawl. We dont crawl simply because we dont need to crawl, those apes on the other hand needed to crawl, to hide easier, to run faster, and to climb better.
Just because their hips were capeable of walking does not mean that they walked instead of crawling. Again, it is extremely unlikely for such a "hip mutation" to pass on through many generations. VERY!

No! I am not saying that at all! Chance genetic mutations produce variations in the species. Some of the individuals will have genetic variations that give them a survival advantage, allowing them to pass on their genes! It is the backbone of evolution!

But what are the chances for that one first uprising ape, to find a mate, succesfully mate, and pass on its genes, not to mention what are the chances for the perhaps also mutated child of it to pass the genes further on.

A theory is a well-substantiated amalgamation of facts, evidence, predictions, and explanations that is logically self-consistent. To call evolution a theory is quite generous on your part.



No, it doesn't.

Why is evolution not a fact then? Not a natural "law", not something that every single scientist have nothing to say against? Evolution is filled with the unexplained and unrecognized and that is why it is and will always be a theory.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You havent found many skulls or fossils! And even finding the avarage skullsize of living humans would be hard. 6000 humans for example cannot talk on behalf of nearly 7 Billion humans.

We've found plenty. Also, skull size does not vary that much among people living in the same generation. If skulls from 10,000 years ago vary a noticeable amount, you can conclude that they change.

If you take the average of thousands of random human skulls, and find them all almost identical, there's a good chance that they're all very similar.

Yes but that is only 1 mutation for only 1 ape! Also it is very unlikely that a ordinary female monkey would find 'him' attractive and mate with 'him'. And lets supose that this one up rising monkey finally somehow managed to find a mate, now what are the chances for his mutation to pass on? The chances for this mutation to be passed on through generations and generations, til the point of where a bunch of monkeys have all learned to walk, is very very very unlikely.

One mutation is all it takes.

Don't try to assume what monkeys find attractive. They mate with the ones who are most successful.

If it's a dominant gene that allows him to stand, then all of his offspring will be able to stand. If it's recessive, it will have to wait until they breed with each other.

Why is it unlikely? Being able to walk is an unbelievably huge advantage, one that would give that monkey boon after boon.

There is absolutely no difference between crawling and walking, regarding sun exposure. Both ways you will have half of you body being exposed to the sunlight.

If the sun is directly overhead, it's beating down on your head and shoulders if you're standing up. If you're lying down, it'll beat upon your entire body.

How come the forests were shrinking?

Climates change, and forests shrink.

Could they not just move to another area?

They could, but all of these forested areas were shrinking.

On a open plain filled with all sort of animals, they would need the ability to run, to hide and their flexibility.

They only needed to be able to run. If they run first, the predator will chase those who are closer.

he view only gives them 2 advantages, they can find their food easier and they can find the dangerous animals easier. But lets supose that they have just found a animal to hunt down, now what?

They didn't hunt. They occasionally scavenged carcasses.

They can locate the dangerous animals and retreat, but what is most important? Being able to easier look out for threats or being able to find and hunt down your food.

Seeing as they were primarily vegetarians, those who walked could do both.

Well so do we, but it does not mean that we cannot crawl. We dont crawl simply because we dont need to crawl, those apes on the other hand needed to crawl, to hide easier, to run faster, and to climb better.

They didn't need to crawl at all.

Just because their hips were capeable of walking does not mean that they walked instead of crawling.

That would be a very odd monkey who did not take advantage of what it had.

Again, it is extremely unlikely for such a "hip mutation" to pass on through many generations. VERY!

I disagree.

But what are the chances for that one first uprising ape, to find a mate, succesfully mate, and pass on its genes, not to mention what are the chances for the perhaps also mutated child of it to pass the genes further on.

They're actually excellent. Being able to walk upright would give such a massive advantage that it would be hard for them not to be able to find a mate.

Why is evolution not a fact then? Not a natural "law", not something that every single scientist have nothing to say against? Evolution is filled with the unexplained and unrecognized and that is why it is and will always be a theory.

First, a fact only deals with one specific thing. A theory deals with a whole range of things. Second, it's only a theory because some things are, sadly, not provable 100%. 100 years from now, nobody will be able to "prove" that 9/11 happened. We cannot prove that the Battle of Hastings took place. Why? Time travel is impossible.

 

[Clashfan]

Krypton, I'm not really going to bother arguing with you, because you're applying the law incorrectly, and clearly have a flawed understanding of evolution (Darwinism, anyway). I suggest you look up "natural selection".

 

[Krypton6]

We've found plenty. Also, skull size does not vary that much among people living in the same generation. If skulls from 10,000 years ago vary a noticeable amount, you can conclude that they change.

I thought fossils were rare? I highly doubt that you have found more than 1-2per age. Skull sizes very alot in the living generation! In africa most people have a large back head, while in europe that is a rare thing.
How can you conclude that they change? Just because you found a few old ancient skulls with different sizes does not mean that the the size is being reduced over time.

If you take the average of thousands of random human skulls, and find them all almost identical, there's a good chance that they're all very similar.

I really doubt that out of 6000 people for instance, all skullsizes would be nearly identical.

One mutation is all it takes.

Don't try to assume what monkeys find attractive. They mate with the ones who are most successful.

They mate with the ones that they find succesful, a walking ape is not something that a crawling ape would look at as succesful. Take a human inside a cage with an ape, and the ape would just run of or hide or attack, simply because the fact that we are standing makes us look very different.

If it's a dominant gene that allows him to stand, then all of his offspring will be able to stand. If it's recessive, it will have to wait until they breed with each other.

Lets assume that he somehow managed to find a mate that accepted him, and lets assume that the dominant gene was the mutated gene, resulting in the next generation being born with the mutated gene. Now this ape who's father was the original host for this mutation, what are the chances for this ape being accepted by a mate, and what are the chances for its "hip mutation gene" being the dominant gene?

This could not have proceeded out to the whole race resulting in all of the apes walking!

Being able to walk is an unbelievably huge advantage, one that would give that monkey boon after boon.

No it is not a huge advantage, the only advantage it gives to the ape is the view.

If the sun is directly overhead, it's beating down on your head and shoulders if you're standing up. If you're lying down, it'll beat upon your entire body.

There's not many place in the world were the sun is directly over your head. Crawling is not lying down. If your crawling your backhead along with the upper part of your back will be exposed to the sunlight. Why should Australopithecines's even have a problem with sunlight exposure, their entire body is hairy.

Climates change, and forests shrink.

So it started getting colder?

They could, but all of these forested areas were shrinking.

Where ever a forest is shrinking somewhere else another is growing.

They only needed to be able to run. If they run first, the predator will chase those who are closer.

The predator also hapends to be chasing the weakest of them all, a 2 legged animal would be the weakest. of them ALL. A 4 legged animal could without any struggle hunt down the 2 legged.

They didn't hunt. They occasionally scavenged carcasses.

They had to hunt at some point or another! A dead animal in the wild is ussaly completely eaten, and the carcasses finished up by birds and such, so its unlikely that they managed to get any meat out of carcasses.

Seeing as they were primarily vegetarians, those who walked could do both.

Apes are not vegetarians, and 2 legged apes cannot hunt.

They didn't need to crawl at all.

In order to run faster and manage to get their meat, they would need to crawl.

That would be a very odd monkey who did not take advantage of what it had.

Perhaps it didnt it didnt need to walk.

They're actually excellent. Being able to walk upright would give such a massive advantage that it would be hard for them not to be able to find a mate.

A strange new looking and walking ape will have a very hard time being accepted by crawling apes. And again, walking upright would not have given it a massive advantage, the only advantage would be the view.

First, a fact only deals with one specific thing. A theory deals with a whole range of things. Second, it's only a theory because some things are, sadly, not provable 100%. 100 years from now, nobody will be able to "prove" that 9/11 happened. We cannot prove that the Battle of Hastings took place. Why? Time travel is impossible.

9/11 could be proved, we have too much evidence! There are tons of pictures and videos, there would be tons of people who've fathers and and mothers lived at the time it took place. While 1 might lie, 2 might lie and 3 might lie it would be impossible for 5 billion people to lie about it.

 

[ownage triple101]

even if we were created by god or whatever you beleive in
evolution still had to take place
its a natural thing

 

[TJ]

there,sorry. i have been sick for the last two days.. damn undercooked meatloaf.


(They go from past to present, the farhtest right being todays(n))

 

[DarkOmega]

I'm a Christian and i highly disbelieve the evolution
i believe that earth started with Adam and Eve

but then again there is a lot of evidence for each side

 

[jebckr]

I'm a Christian and i highly disbelieve the evolution
i believe that earth started with Adam and Eve

but then again there is a lot of evidence for each side

What evidence is there for the side of Christianity? I mean honestly, what can you tell me other than it is a religion that has been forced on you since the day you where born and is now an accepted fact in your mind? Christians have faith and that's about it. I want to say nearly half of all Christians don't believe dinasaurs ever existed. Don't quote me on that though.

Evolution has facts behind it, physical and scientific FACTS. Now, like other people have said, evolution and Christianity can coexist. Allthough it seems very few choose to let the two intertwine.


oh, btw "i am you aint i" nice find. I've found a diagram in a biology book I need to show everyone. It's fairly similar, I'll try to get it on here tomorrow.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I thought fossils were rare? I highly doubt that you have found more than 1-2per age. Skull sizes very alot in the living generation! In africa most people have a large back head, while in europe that is a rare thing.

Right. Relatively rare.

How can you conclude that they change? Just because you found a few old ancient skulls with different sizes does not mean that the the size is being reduced over time.

It's more than a few skulls, you know.

I really doubt that out of 6000 people for instance, all skullsizes would be nearly identical.

Hmm. Funny thing about that is, they are nearly identical.

They mate with the ones that they find succesful, a walking ape is not something that a crawling ape would look at as succesful. Take a human inside a cage with an ape, and the ape would just run of or hide or attack, simply because the fact that we are standing makes us look very different.

The thing is, though, they mate with the ones who are successful. That would be the walking ones.

Also, you don't go from crawling apes to walking in just one generation. It happens incrementally.

Lets assume that he somehow managed to find a mate that accepted him, and lets assume that the dominant gene was the mutated gene, resulting in the next generation being born with the mutated gene. Now this ape who's father was the original host for this mutation, what are the chances for this ape being accepted by a mate, and what are the chances for its "hip mutation gene" being the dominant gene?

1). Excellent.
2). 100%. Dominant genes remain so.

This could not have proceeded out to the whole race

The walking ones are far more successful. Why wouldn't they replace the non-walking ones?

No it is not a huge advantage, the only advantage it gives to the ape is the view.

Right. Like I said, a huge advantage.

There's not many place in the world were the sun is directly over your head.

Africa is one of those places.

Crawling is not lying down. If your crawling your backhead along with the upper part of your back will be exposed to the sunlight. Why should Australopithecines's even have a problem with sunlight exposure, their entire body is hairy.

Overheating.

So it started getting colder?

At that specific time, I don't know.

Where ever a forest is shrinking somewhere else another is growing.

What logic is there to that?

The predator also hapends to be chasing the weakest of them all, a 2 legged animal would be the weakest. of them ALL. A 4 legged animal could without any struggle hunt down the 2 legged.

The thing is, though, chimpanzees (basically the same as Austrolopithecus, except that they don't walk) can't run terribly fast on all fours. Also, their main predator was built in such a way as to suggest ambush hunting, not chase hunting.

They had to hunt at some point or another! A dead animal in the wild is ussaly completely eaten, and the carcasses finished up by birds and such, so its unlikely that they managed to get any meat out of carcasses.

They couldn't hunt! They would, on occasion, find a carcass that birds were in the middle of eating, and chase them away.

Apes are not vegetarians, and 2 legged apes cannot hunt.

Apes are omnivores. They live on what they get.

In order to run faster and manage to get their meat, they would need to crawl.

1). Crawling apes are not very fast.
2). How would they kill their prey?
3). How would they even see over the grass?

Perhaps it didnt it didnt need to walk.

Living on the savanna? That would be very odd indeed.

A strange new looking and walking ape will have a very hard time being accepted by crawling apes. And again, walking upright would not have given it a massive advantage, the only advantage would be the view.

The change doesn't take place all at once. First, monkeys have the capability to walk upright anyway. They just can't do it efficiently for a long period of time. Second, a view is a massive advantage.

9/11 could be proved, we have too much evidence! There are tons of pictures and videos, there would be tons of people who've fathers and and mothers lived at the time it took place. While 1 might lie, 2 might lie and 3 might lie it would be impossible for 5 billion people to lie about it.

Pictures and videos can be doctored, and people can lie. All I'm saying is that it's not possible to prove anything 100%.

I'm a Christian and i highly disbelieve the evolution
i believe that earth started with Adam and Eve

but then again there is a lot of evidence for each side

You would take a book over science?

 

[TJ]

until a Christian shows me some evidence that god existed then i cannot accept god. i mean, what is the evidence? besides a book, there is none. where about evolution has skeletons, DNA, and some other stuff.