Ida, evolutionary model, challenged by new discovery

[Diuretic]

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

That's a fine sense of intellectual superiority you have there JB.

so survival of the fittest, does that indicate that we WONT kill every human on Earth?

I think the original idea was about fitness in the sense of adaptation - as in, the best adapted creatures will continue to reproduce but those that don't adapt will gradually die out. I know we nearly wiped ourselves out via thermonuclear war a few times but we pulled back from the brink, but a bacterium or virus doesn't have a conscious or a sense of humanity so I still think they're more of a threat to our species than we are to ourselves.

Of course I could just have my head up my arse!

 

[JBeukema]

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

That's a fine sense of intellectual superiority you have there JB.

so survival of the fittest, does that indicate that we WONT kill every human on Earth?

It means you're retarded

 

[elvis]

I guess the Dutch Boy likes to have discussions by himself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

Let me get this straight, evolution stopped in our case?

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

And yet you can provide not one shred of evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature nor ANY evidence that ANY mammal species ever spawned 2 or more entirely different species. Go figure.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science is a series of practical processes, religion is a belief system. One has little to do with the other. We can believe what we wish, believing means never having to prove anything. Science requires evidence and proof of claims.

No it does not. It requires a theory and then with out any evidence the belief that theory is right. A theory is nothing more than a guess, sometimes a very educated guess , sometimes a leap of faith guess. Some theories have some evidence to SUGGEST they are right but no REAL proof at all. No evidence what so ever. A lot of theories have nothing what so ever in evidence or proof.

A theory in science isn't a guess. A hypothesis isn't a guess either. A theory can prove a hypothesis.

Belief is about faith. Faith is personal and subjective. Science and its theories are impersonal and objective. The elements that make up faith, the things that someone believes in, aren't provable; a scientific theory is provable or it isn't a theory.

I suggest you learn facts, theories are all guesses made to try and explain different things we know or suspect to have happened. Someone or a group of someones develops the theory and then everyone goes about proving the theory.

Lawyers do that as well as cops. They decide what happened in regards a crime and then proceed to view all the facts and information involved in that case with a desire to prove their already decided event.

Theories are NOT proven. If they were they would no longer BE theories. They are by definition assumptions and an assumption is a guess. Oh the guess may be very informed but it still is JUST a guess.

 

[KittenKoder]

No it does not. It requires a theory and then with out any evidence the belief that theory is right. A theory is nothing more than a guess, sometimes a very educated guess , sometimes a leap of faith guess. Some theories have some evidence to SUGGEST they are right but no REAL proof at all. No evidence what so ever. A lot of theories have nothing what so ever in evidence or proof.

A theory in science isn't a guess. A hypothesis isn't a guess either. A theory can prove a hypothesis.

Belief is about faith. Faith is personal and subjective. Science and its theories are impersonal and objective. The elements that make up faith, the things that someone believes in, aren't provable; a scientific theory is provable or it isn't a theory.

I suggest you learn facts, theories are all guesses made to try and explain different things we know or suspect to have happened. Someone or a group of someones develops the theory and then everyone goes about proving the theory.

Lawyers do that as well as cops. They decide what happened in regards a crime and then proceed to view all the facts and information involved in that case with a desire to prove their already decided event.

Theories are NOT proven. If they were they would no longer BE theories. They are by definition assumptions and an assumption is a guess. Oh the guess may be very informed but it still is JUST a guess.

Sorry RGS, but it is you who knows very little about science. Even JB knows more about science than you at this point. Science isn't looking at an apple and orange and saying they are different colors, science is looking at them and detailing the molecular structure, how the alcohols contained effect the taste buds, how the reflected light makes them appear different colors to our chromatic vision, etc. etc. etc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lots of words to say an assumption used to try and define something we know or think we know happened or is.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

A theory is not an assumption.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A theory in science isn't a guess. A hypothesis isn't a guess either. A theory can prove a hypothesis.

Belief is about faith. Faith is personal and subjective. Science and its theories are impersonal and objective. The elements that make up faith, the things that someone believes in, aren't provable; a scientific theory is provable or it isn't a theory.

I suggest you learn facts, theories are all guesses made to try and explain different things we know or suspect to have happened. Someone or a group of someones develops the theory and then everyone goes about proving the theory.

Lawyers do that as well as cops. They decide what happened in regards a crime and then proceed to view all the facts and information involved in that case with a desire to prove their already decided event.

Theories are NOT proven. If they were they would no longer BE theories. They are by definition assumptions and an assumption is a guess. Oh the guess may be very informed but it still is JUST a guess.

Sorry RGS, but it is you who knows very little about science. Even JB knows more about science than you at this point. Science isn't looking at an apple and orange and saying they are different colors, science is looking at them and detailing the molecular structure, how the alcohols contained effect the taste buds, how the reflected light makes them appear different colors to our chromatic vision, etc. etc. etc.

And yet you can not provide a single verifiable case of a mammal species that "evolved" into 2 or more entirely different species. You can not provide any evidence that the Big bang theory is right, it too is untestable and provable. You can not provide any way to test the theory that states how life began on this planet either.

The list goes on and on.

 

[KittenKoder]

I suggest you learn facts, theories are all guesses made to try and explain different things we know or suspect to have happened. Someone or a group of someones develops the theory and then everyone goes about proving the theory.

Lawyers do that as well as cops. They decide what happened in regards a crime and then proceed to view all the facts and information involved in that case with a desire to prove their already decided event.

Theories are NOT proven. If they were they would no longer BE theories. They are by definition assumptions and an assumption is a guess. Oh the guess may be very informed but it still is JUST a guess.

Sorry RGS, but it is you who knows very little about science. Even JB knows more about science than you at this point. Science isn't looking at an apple and orange and saying they are different colors, science is looking at them and detailing the molecular structure, how the alcohols contained effect the taste buds, how the reflected light makes them appear different colors to our chromatic vision, etc. etc. etc.

And yet you can not provide a single verifiable case of a mammal species that "evolved" into 2 or more entirely different species. You can not provide any evidence that the Big bang theory is right, it too is untestable and provable. You can not provide any way to test the theory that states how life began on this planet either.

The list goes on and on.

you ignored that information again ... oh wait ... I am not really surprised.

Big bang theory I never contended was right, at least not your idea of what it is.

As for how life began, well, not my area of knowledge but I do know that they have reproduced situations which do account for it, and one thing in my area of knowledge, they have found life on other planets as well as evidence of life existing at one time on even more. So meh.

You are projecting a limited amount of understanding onto other people, not everyone thinks in monochromatic ways, and science is not monochromatic.

 

[JBeukema]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=PlayList&p=F626DD5B2C1F0A87&index=0&playnext=1"]Here, RGS, let CDK educate you[/ame]

AronRa might also be able to explain a few things to you

TF00t explains why we keep laughing at you

DonExodus explains how evolution works

and talks about transitional fossils

 

[JBeukema]

[youtube]ONvDjHM3eNg[/youtube]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for either of you two to provide any evidence of a single mammal species evolving into 2 or more different species.

 

[JBeukema]

That you choose to ignore the evidence that has been put forth shows you to be stupid, dishonest, or both.

 

[code1211]

LOL!!!

Only the "details" and "early stages" are in question

It takes far, far, more Faith to believe in evolution, than in religion.

Every time Pioneer engineers a type of corn that is more drought resistant or has more kernals per cob, that is evidence of evolution. The same is true of breeding thoroughbred horses or prize winning bulls for the state fair.

The tangible evidence of evolution is all around all the time and everyday. Evolution requires nothing more than observation. Thomas would have been an evolutionist if he lived today.

The evidence of religion is only the faith of the believers. Any tangible evidence of faith that is needed is actually a thing that undermines faith.

You are ignoring the facts. Yes there is evidence that WITHIN a Mammal species there is evolution, few deny that. To date there is not one shred of evidence that a mammal can evolve into 2 or more distinctly different species.

At what point does a distincly different species emerge in your definition? A Chi Hua Hua seems pretty different from a Timber Wolf to this observer. What are the specific markers that reveal your differentiations?

If it's a name, a wolf is not a dog is not a coyote is not a fox. A Condor is not a Humming Bird. All of these have the same basic structure with very minor deviations observable in their various sizes, skeletal and muscular structures and, of course, all use DNA as the instruction manual to grow. They are all carbon based and all live consuming approximately the same stuff as sustanance.

All of the animals that have a backbone and lungs are remarkably similar in almost every way with only very minor differences, adaptations, that suit them for specific functions.

 

[JBeukema]

[/color]
Every time Pioneer engineers a type of corn that is more drought resistant or has more kernals per cob, that is evidence of evolution. The same is true of breeding thoroughbred horses or prize winning bulls for the state fair.

The tangible evidence of evolution is all around all the time and everyday. Evolution requires nothing more than observation. Thomas would have been an evolutionist if he lived today.

The evidence of religion is only the faith of the believers. Any tangible evidence of faith that is needed is actually a thing that undermines faith.

You are ignoring the facts. Yes there is evidence that WITHIN a Mammal species there is evolution, few deny that. To date there is not one shred of evidence that a mammal can evolve into 2 or more distinctly different species.

At what point does a distincly different species emerge in your definition? A Chi Hua Hua seems pretty different from a Timber Wolf to this observer. What are the specific markers that reveal your differentiations?

Timberwolf = Species: C. lupus

Chuihuahua= Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris
(source: Wikipedia)

 

[code1211]

Science requires evidence and proof of claims.

Except when it comes to the pseudo science of evolution.

Evolution requires mostly faith and not much hard science.

To the contrary, the breeding of horses is an ongoing practice which relies on the instruments of evolution. So is dog breeding, agricultural research, every area of livestock research and the improvement of naturally sourced fibers.

Without the understanding of how any and every species on the planet changes, we would be cold and starving.

 

[JBeukema]

And yet, Del says that there are no creationists on this board


Ignore these idiots, Code. I put all the evidence forward i other threads. They cannot claim ignorance; if they continue to spout such bullshit, it is utter stupidity, dishonesty, or both.

 

[code1211]

Science is a series of practical processes, religion is a belief system. One has little to do with the other. We can believe what we wish, believing means never having to prove anything. Science requires evidence and proof of claims.

No it does not. It requires a theory and then with out any evidence the belief that theory is right. A theory is nothing more than a guess, sometimes a very educated guess , sometimes a leap of faith guess. Some theories have some evidence to SUGGEST they are right but no REAL proof at all. No evidence what so ever. A lot of theories have nothing what so ever in evidence or proof.

This particular theory has plenty of proof. Without looking it up, I'm guessing that the theory says something along the lines that a species can adapt over time to its environment. Part two of the theory would be that when this adaptation does not take place, the species reduces to extinction.

We know that a species can become extinct and that once extinct, it will not spontaneously be reborn as the result of a pairing of animals unlike itself. We know from the phrase: "He has his father's nose" that traits are passed from one generation to the next. We know generally what a Canine looks like and clearly know that a Great Dane is not a Labrador.

What about a Saber Tooth Tiger? It was a lumbering beast with a build more like a bear than a modern cat with, by today's standards, very long and powerful front legs and very short hind legs. Very powerful front half of the body including those trade mark teeth. It is thought that they perhaps ate the Mastadons. Both of these are extinct.

Nothing like either one in today's world.

Extinction, of itself, is an element of evolution.

 

[xotoxi]

What we descended from lemurs? Come on which is it? Mice, apes or Lemurs?

This is a relatively ignorant question, considering all three have a common ancestor.

No proof of that exists. Once again provide even ONE example of proven mammal species that we can PROVE developed into 2 or more distinct separate species.

There is also no PROOF that the alternate theory is true.