Evolution vs Religion

There are few fakes and the ones that are have been to be fake for quite awhile. They are no longer included in the timeline. Thrown out. That's how science works.

It's not like Creationist have never faked anything. Remember the Paluxy tracks?

EDIT: Plus, only ONE was a hoax. Nebraska wasn't a hoax, it was just hailed by very few to be human-like. Java Man and Ramapithecuswere simply misinterpretted due to the lack of evidence. It happens all the time in science. It's how it works.

 

What is a Paluxy tracks?

 

Fake human tracks by dinosaur tracks.

 

I am sorry i never new that was fake.
and neraska man was a hoax
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/nebraska.html

 

Why are you sorry? You have nothing to be ashamed of. Your only fault here is a lack of thorough research (yet, in debates, that's like murdering a kitten, but otherwise, it's like accidently stepping on an ant).

 

oka, i will try to look for more resources.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/One...n,_New_Guinea_Man,_Cro-Magnon_Man,_Modern_Man

 

That's a good idea. The best way to win a debate is to do research. But, avoid sites like answersingenesis. The scientific method is: question - gather evidence - make hypothosis based on that evidence - test about 50-100 times - change hypothosys based on results. answersingenesis method: say that your right - scream at the top of your lungs that all evidence against your claim is incorrect and/or misinterpretted.

EDIT: What was the point of that link?

 

I will make sure to stay away from those sites thanks.

What do you mean another force?
Saix are you here?

 

Ramapithecus is one of the non-human primate ancestors from between 12 and 14 million years ago. Fossils of Ramapithecus were first identified in 1932 in the Siwalka hills of India and are now considered a member of the genus Sivapithecus.

Siwalik specimens, which are legit, were once assigned to the genus Ramapithecus but are now considered by most researchers to belong to one or more species of Sivapithecus. Ramapithecus is no longer regarded as a likely ancestor of humans, and yes, is instead considered one to orangutans. Creationists should stop using it as an argument considering it is NO LONGER recognized in the evolutionary chart of Hominid. Therefore, Sivapithecus is what you should be examining. It was believed in the 1960s that humans had separated from African apes some 15 million or 25 million. However, this was proven erroneous and the separation is now widely accepted at around 5 to 10 million years ago, due to more accurate bio-chemical examinations.

Piltdown man was found in 1912 and was named Eoanthropus dawsoni. It was exposed in 1953 to be a fraud. In 1915 even, some scientists believed it to be a fraud for the reasons that the parts of the cranium did not fit properly and seemed to be forced. Though Piltdown man is a fraud, it does not mean all of the evolutionary chart is. This was corrected long ago and is the biggest lame argument the Creationists have, saying they have any leg to stand on because apparently if there are frauds discovered, the whole thing must be a fraud. Fortunately, unlike religion, science declared it a fraud and moved on and did not try to bother with covering it up.

Nebraska Man was a 'tooth' basically and was from the peccary genus, which is a sort of pig. Nebraska Man was hardly that valued in importance during the minute period of attention it gained from some of the scientific community and even the picture that was done of it was disputed. The only time I hear of it being brought up anymore is by Creationists that like to say that it's such a huge error in the scientific community. Well, note again, it was scientists that misinterpreted it but also scientists that said it was an error. It was found in 1925 and disproved in 1927. Again, also note that the scientific community did not hide the error of their colleagues.

Java Man - Creationists want this specimen declared as either a human or an ape. Though there is debate as to whether this and the Peking Man, both of Asian region, are considered in the common link to now, most scientists feel that the direct link correlates with hominids found in Africa. This however, does not erase the fact that the fragments found are legitimate.

Neanderthal - Has its own classification in the evolutionary chart belonging not with the more gracile hominids from which Homo sapien sapien derived. Neanderthals existed between 300k and up to 30k years ago. Though some humans are more adaptable to the cold, they do not also reveal the protruding jaw and receding forehead. The mid-facial area also protrudes and this is a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. Their bones and skeletal structure are more robust than any human's of today. Are you saying because at one time they believed they were more hunched over that Neanderthals didn't exist? Also, the first burial mound of a Neanderthal can be dated to 100,000 years ago. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA has shown that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens. Some scientists believe possibly that in time some may have mated into the Homo sapiens line, but as of yet there is no solid proof for this. The DNA exam in itself shows that Neanderthal clearly was its own group.

Lucy - Oh this one is another one that is debated. It is a 40% complete Australopithecus afarensis skeleton that was discovered on November 30, 1974. 3.2 million years ago, it is said that Lucy existed and it was found in Ethiopia. Lucy is not the 'oldest' of the fossils found but it is the most famous. There are others that also show that Lucy is not a 'pygmy chimpanzee that walked more upright'. Afarensis had teeth that were more related to humans than apes. The canines are also much smaller than that of modern day apes. The pelvis and leg bones are clearly more related to humans than apes of today, even the Bonobo. The hands were also more related to a human's. Otherwise, there are similarities to apes, particularly chimpanzees or bonobos. Her greater trochanter, found at the base of the neck was also more distinctively a human found trait. This is a legitimate skeleton and it can be debated but it stands in the evolutionary chart as significant. I had professors that worked on and studied Lucy and it is very fascinating to see it in person.

ACTUAL Fossils IN the Evolutionary List

These are as the evolutionary list stands now and is debated. Most of what you mentioned above that we went over were either eliminated by the Science Community (NOT CREATIONISTS) or Creationists just try to askew things their way.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor (based on juvinile, may belong to another group)
Homo sapiens (archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern) - us.

So there's a more accurate display of the current listing and I'd go through and list out the many fossils found etc but I figure we don't need more of a novel. If you are going to rip something apart, at least choose things that the science community itself did not rip out or disprove. Creationists didn't do the work. They just pull evidence from what the science community did not hide. They also on every single discussion use the exact same examples, never coming up with anything original.

I can see the debate of Intelligent Design in this. This is what many Christians who do believe in evolution feel and well, others who aren't Christian ponder. Intelligent Design expresses that a force was a great mover in the background to kick off the sparks needed for evolution, or did stay in and mold things and affect life in its growing pattern. Science cannot disprove that nor can it say for certain it is true. However, what evidence at all is there for Creationism?

 

When we speak of Evolution, it is not just the Evolution of Homo Sapiens though that is what comes to mind in this discussion. But it is in the Evolution of Man that we most hear the word 'luck' come into play. If the luck of our distant ancestors had taken a turn for the worse, we might not be here to this day.

Thank you Mirai for the posting of those links. We have too many complete skeletons of past hominids for them to be fakes or some conspiracy of scientists to garner in visitors to Natural History Museums.

Jedininja, I applaud you for being so steadfast in your beliefs. But it is best to avoid the bias of Christian websites as your evidence as one of your fellow Creationist comrades loves to do.

Neanderthals have been proven to not be just one or two diseased Homo Sapiens. They did look a lot like us save for being denser of muscle and the prominant eye ridge. They had to be more sturdy due to the world they evolved in. Unlike those that stayed in Africa and later moved forward, they arrived in Europe when the glacier still covered most, if not all of it. Their large noses were able to warm the air, their bodies being able to take more punishment than our more frail ancestors.

But as I said, it was luck that H. Australopithecus started scavenging kills from predators. Because more protein = bigger brains. Gradually we progressed from scavenging to actually hunting for their own meat. Around the time of H. Ergaster. Ergaster also gave us our ability to regulate our body temperature by sweating, to let these hunters be more active during the hottest part of the day which is an advantage when your prey or your competition is in the shade resting.

Man evolved by 'Luck' but one could also look at it as we evolved 'by taking chances'. I'd strongly suggest watching BBC's 'Walking with Cavemen' if you'd like. The BBC takes the latest scientific findings and places them in images for people to see.

 

Thanks I might check bbc out.

Some very intresting pieces of art on bbc.
But some of them look like apes not a link. some of them do look like a missing link.

Now if some of these "apes" were real i think they look simalir because they were all created by God. Just like artist's pieces of art work have a same
style.

 

They look like apes because the idea is that we evolved from ape like creatures. Indeed we are still classified as apes today. It took millions of years for us to evolve to where we are today. It is not as if we came from H. Australopithecus to H. Sapiens in the course of a few years.

 

I know it takes million of years but you can't really mix evolution with religion i used to but know it doesn't make any sense. Because 6 days does not meen a million years, and when God said in six days he ment six days he meant 6 days.

Well I am getting sleepy see you later!

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html

This is a pretty good site I found just recently which has things dealing with the debates of creationism and evolution. I haven't read through it all but they do have links to many things and go through the different fossil collections, as well as point out issues that creationists have, and flaws on both sides of the line.

 

Nothing to do with fate?? You just provided the definition to fate!

I'm glad you managed to read my reply that actually dealt with EVOLUTION. BRAVO. I'm glad you find that God helps you rather than you help yourself. Just mind blowing really.

As for how you find evolution laughable....I find creationism, or at least a majority of its supporters quite laughable....The world runs on satire I suppose. (Because really, some of the work done by God can be considered 'magic' which is ironic in on itself. I think AIDS is probably one of the cruelest magic tricks 'God' has done.)

Still you never did reply to how you only accept and utilize certain aspects of science (aka using technology born from science).....science is quantifiable in that there is a specific process as to how information and logic is obtained....Science is alive in that IT is constantly evolving whereas your Bible...which as you know was written by PEOPLE not GOD...they could have very much lied- but alas, you put down this conviction as your ONLY truth and mix in your own opinionated bias as your part of debate. Need I remind you that there are all sorts of corrupt religious "servants" out there? And need I remind you that the Bible says all humans are God's children?

As for your counter-evidence...as said a billion times before, it is not a perfected theory. In fact the only reason why I see that creationists are so hellbent on not accepting the theory of evolution is because of some egotism that they could never have come from "monkeys" and prefer to think they were formed from MUD/A RIB.

I'm glad you have seen more than one "mirical"/miracle, now how about you bring in some more solid evidence that supports creationism rather then just focusing on disproving parts of evolution? (Not saying you shouldn't but you are repeating what was said 20 something pages ago with the links.) I say this because not one of the creationists (that I have seen thus far) have provided VALID evidence aside from their personal testimonial of "what God does". And you do know a miracle generally means "overcoming against seemingly insurmountable odds" right?

Side-Note: Quoting George Lucas is NOT a valid arguement in this debate.

Side-Note 2: How come God is no longer doing his/she/it's biblical voodoo anymore, but instead is only doing these "miracles" you claim to have seen?

So now you have the license to say his word as well?

Do tell me the infamous meaning of where Adam's wives sprouted out of nothing as well? Or are you going to say "well just cuz"?

 

Ain't going to be logged on

QUOTE]
I have to go to camp ain't going to be loggded on and won't be for 6 days.
So don't be looking for me.

 

You are not getting any proof because you are arguing with a teenager about his beliefs of which were brought upon him without question. He doesn't know how to get proof, besides repeat what he has been told. I'm sure there is evidence to support Creationism, but neither he nor I can find it for you. You're just beating a dead horse.

I have but one question about evolution. It's been bothering me for some time lately, and maybe the members at this forum can help me. What decides which features of X animal stays and goes? Wouldn't something need to realize that a thumb on your foot is not good for running? (Just an example). I've yet to understand what decides what features stay and go, and the only thing that makes sense to me is accidental mutation. But for an accidental mutation to occur that enlarged the cerebrum is beyond me. there would have to be billions of dead ends and such, and we really were "lucky" for lack of a better term.

 

'Luck' in this case, is biased. The 'luckiest' thing that ever happened was the pure chance of life forming on the Earth at all. The raw materials for any life we're aware of are carbon and liquid water, which 4.6 billion years ago just were not present in the environment in sufficient quantities to form organic compounds. Whatever theory you like about how this changed and single-celled life arose, whether a comet possessing these ingredients crashed into the earth or a lightning storm set off a peculiar chemical chain reaction, the fact that it happened was the most random occurrence in the whole history of evolution.

From then on, we see how the odds are stacked in favor of an organism that survives long enough to reproduce. The most important reason we have sexual reproduction occurring in organisms is because it increases the odds that the particular code of DNA will be random enough within a specific set of boundaries so that an organism will wind up being as different as possible from its parents while still possessing all of the characteristics that made its parents able to survive long enough to reproduce. In other words, it's like a combination lock. They all possess a case, a locking mechanism, and some method of inputting a numerical code that unlocks it. The most successful locks will be those whose codes cannot be easily guessed and whose mechanisms are tough enough to defeat attempts at tampering with them physically. One thing that is absolutely necessary is that each lock has a unique combination. Otherwise, once you guess one lock, you can guess another, and ultimately perhaps discover some pattern that unlocks them all. When applied to organisms, unlocking all the combination locks means species extinction, because the agent doing the unlocking could be a natural disaster such as a meteor strike or a virus that is able to invade cells and reproduce so well that it finally kills all hosts with the same kind of immune system defenses.

What this genetic lottery does is produce organisms that may vary within their species by physical appearance, immune system, blood type, sensitivity to environmental hazards, etc. And as long as the individual's chromosomes remain compatible with those of other members of its species, it can engage in sexual reproduction and its characteristics are passed on.

So let's say we do have a monkey from a species whose brains are much smaller than ours. He has a few more brain cells in his frontal lobes than his relatives because of a chance mutation. This allows him the curiousity to find out whether the lions are on to something with eating antelope, so he goes out and sees how good the marrow inside their broken bones tastes. He decides it doesn't taste so bad, and he doesn't have to eat as much fruit that day because the marrow was full of protein and calories. He has just gained an advantage over the other monkeys in his group, and doesn't have to compete with them as much for fruit. He passes on this trait and the habit to his offspring and they benefit greatly by both. The more of these offspring that survive and reproduce, the more chance their descendants will have random mutations that further increases their brain mass.

When discussing a certain characteristic, it may seem really improbable for it to evolve because of its complexity. But the truth is, a patch of photo-sensitive cells on a creature's body can quickly develop into an eye in less than 500,000 years because the survival advantages of having an ability as crude as sensing time of day are so great. In the meantime, every stage of the process of turning from a patch of skin cells to a camera-like eye is recorded in fossil data. And this is across species, so we know that it such mutations occur independently. It's not just a freak possibility because humans are definitely not the only ones with eyes, nor with large brains capable of making sense of the information gathered by them.

What is unique to humans is our overgrown frontal lobes. That's where our decision making takes place, where we reason through the raw information our senses and emotions give us. Other creatures' brains may be more massive than ours yet they don't have language or reasoning abilities quite as sophisticated. This tells me not that having mutations that eventually produces them is not that amazing. It just doesn't always turn out that reasoning and language sophistication are less costly than some other feature like a keen sense of smell or the ability to run 40 mph. In fact, they're a -lot- more expensive than other characteristics in terms of a long period of helplessness in childhood, for example, or needing enormous amounts of calories to fuel the working of the brain. And it took 3 billion years to produce the right environmental circumstances and genetic combinations for beings with overgrown frontal lobes to evolve that could use them to offset the losses incurred by having them.

The existence of the modern human brain was never a foregone conclusion. It was never inevitable, nor was it impossible. It was about as unlikely or improbable as the elephant's trunk to evolve.

 

But what about our languages?
Did some random person go up to another and say "Hey, je ne sais pas :D "
No.
SOMEONE (God) would have to make it!

 

Did.... did you just say God created language?