Study help- What is the purpose of the evolution theory?
Options
Comments
-
someone please explain to me how monkeys evolved over the years into humans, yet there are still monkeys and humans, but none of the stages in between walkin around
they don't know. they're just repeating some ? they've been told. expect a whole lot of double-speak, rhetoric and perhaps a bit of name calling to occur to cover up that glaring flaw.
***waits for the hemming and hawing to re-commence*** -
they don't know. they're just repeating some ? they've been told. expect a whole lot of double-speak, rhetoric and perhaps a bit of name calling to occur to cover up that glaring flaw.
***waits for the hemming and hawing to re-commence***
k cuz im not extra religious or anything but that ? doesnt make sense to me -
k cuz im not extra religious or anything but that ? doesnt make sense to me
LOL. Anybody with a little common sense knows it doesn't make sense. It's ridiculous my friend. -
Why do people continually bring up that "if people evolved from monkey's, why are monkey's still around" argument when it's been said that humans and monkeys simply come from a common ancestor over a thousand times.
and even if humans did evolve from monkey's (they didn't, this is just an if) The "why are monkey's still around questions can simply be answered by some monkey's being in a different region than others, so the ones in a environment evolved, while the ones in the more stable environment remained the same. -
Why do people continually bring up that "if people evolved from monkey's, why are monkey's still around" argument when it's been said that humans and monkeys simply come from a common ancestor over a thousand times.
and even if humans did evolve from monkey's (they didn't, this is just an if) The "why are monkey's still around questions can simply be answered by some monkey's being in a different region than others, so the ones in a environment evolved, while the ones in the more stable environment remained the same.
Because to a rationale mind, the speculative claims of evolution are PREPOSTEROUS!
LOL @ a common ancestor. LOL @ the missing link. LOL @ evolution.
You really, really, really, really, really lost at life if you believe in that garbage.
Man yall so gullible that you peeeps would believe anything. How naive some people truly are. Hey, I got some real estate in the Grand Canyon for sale. You interested? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Because to a rationale mind, the speculative claims of evolution are PREPOSTEROUS!
LOL @ a common ancestor. LOL @ the missing link. LOL @ evolution.
You really, really, really, really, really lost at life if you believe in that garbage.
Man yall so gullible that you peeeps would believe anything. How naive some people truly are. Hey, I got some real estate in the Grand Canyon for sale. You interested?
to a rational mind evolution makes sense actually...it's common sense to think that creatures adapt to fit the needs of their environment/time period...if they didn't they'd die out... -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Because to a rationale mind, the speculative claims of evolution are PREPOSTEROUS!
LOL @ a common ancestor. LOL @ the missing link. LOL @ evolution.
You really, really, really, really, really lost at life if you believe in that garbage.
Man yall so gullible that you peeeps would believe anything. How naive some people truly are. Hey, I got some real estate in the Grand Canyon for sale. You interested?
The DNA that links us together is evidence. Are you saying that YOU aren't being naive in believing something with no evidence that you can at least point too? People may not be scientist but there is nothing to stop them from becoming scientist to test the same data. I guess paternity and maternity test and tracing your ancestors isn't valid either right? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Because to a rationale mind, the speculative claims of evolution are PREPOSTEROUS!
LOL @ a common ancestor. LOL @ the missing link. LOL @ evolution.
You really, really, really, really, really lost at life if you believe in that garbage.
Man yall so gullible that you peeeps would believe anything. How naive some people truly are. Hey, I got some real estate in the Grand Canyon for sale. You interested?
LMAO
this is too funny -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Spirituality is discovering the essence of the inner man (spirit) through acknowledging the Creator YHWH and recognizing who we are in Him and His son Yeshua through the Holy Scriptures. Everyone has an inner man and it's revealed that your spirit is the real essence of you, not your outer man. Certain books of the Holy scriptures throughout history have been tampered with and mistranslated because of the Euro-centric factors for manipulation and control, like for example, the anthropomorphic views of the Creator which you and others possibly view in your opinion as "a bearded man in the sky" but people that think like that are indoctrinated into that Euro-centric culture..and that's called religion. They're being foolish. But in essence of true spirituality you cannot take ALL the scriptures and throw them out because of it.
Sounds like religion to me. You just have a different concept from others. You follow manuscripts that offer a mythical rendition of the creation of the world along with guides to live by which is the prerequisite for being religious. What you are not, is part of a Church which would be considered Organized religion. I understand that white ? was created by Michelangelo, but did you know that he didn't agree with that ? either? he studied science and created technologies while others were engrossed in their myths. -
lol...where did i equate science in and of itself with european, western culture? where did i say ignorance and superstition are the only alternative to submitting to western society? the ? is my view on evolution you non-reading idiot? NO CONJECTURE..JUST DIRECT QUOTES...evidence TO SUPPORT YOUR ACCUSATIONS. you speak of rationality...i directly attacked a specific line of rationale evidenced in a specific post in this thread and other ones like it in a concise and logical manner. who the ? do you think youre strawmanning ? ? let me reiterate my point so maybe this go-round you can be a tad bit LESS fallacious with your treatment of my statements..
Rizzo da Great said: anyone who believes ANYTHING is an idiot, because we have nothing to show that there is anything other then what we see,
I said: unless you are over a billion years old to have witnessed evolution firsthand or an archaeologist who tests fossils then you are guilty of belief as well.hell, unless youre omniscient you HAVE to believe in something because by definition culture is "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another". you submit to western culture therefore you believe in the architects of it.
obviously i pointed out a hole in the ? reasoning on the subject of belief. nowhere in that post did i give a definitive assertion of what evolution is or isnt, nor did i directly or indirectly endorse ignorance or superstition. i merely alluded to the FACT that the whole concept of evolution is frequently used to invalidate the existence of the Most High. given the other harmful results that have emerged from that particular stream of knowledge and the lack of practical application of it towards recovering from the social effects of chattel slavery, my questioning of the efficacy of what you folks consider epistemologically sound is intelligent and highly relevant to the discussion at hand. sounds like YOU are in a state of willful ignorance. there is no flaw in the logic that i utilized in the opening statement of my post that you quoted. get the ? out of here with your elementary ass fallacies.
Sorry. I must have just misunderstood all your mumbo jumbo.someone please explain to me how monkeys evolved over the years into humans, yet there are still monkeys and humans, but none of the stages in between walkin around
That's an easy one. Obviously the transition stage was less suited to whatever environment and died out. By died out I mean was bred out of (or into) our gene pool. It's happened more than once and with many different species. That's why it's called survival of the fittest. -
FuriousOne wrote: »The DNA that links us together is evidence. Are you saying that YOU aren't being naive in believing something with no evidence that you can at least point too? People may not be scientist but there is nothing to stop them from becoming scientist to test the same data. I guess paternity and maternity test and tracing your ancestors isn't valid either right?
that ? fallacious. we share 70 -90 % of the same dna as mice. bats and horses have more common dna than cows and horses. its not about the similarity of genes as it is what genes are active or inactive.
chimps and humans are supposed to be like 98- 99 % similar genetically right? so is language, art, music, mathematics, technology, philosophy, animal husbandry, agriculture, and a moral and spiritual capacity in that 1-2% gap? soft tissue morphology and brain biochemistry too?
so where did the 98-99% figure come about anyway?
and why is it ignored that a 2006 study by i.u. geneticist matthew hahn discovered that there is instead a 6% gap as opposed to 1-2 % gap? because richard gibbs, director of the baylor college of medicine's human genome sequencing center in houston established that there is a 93% similarity between rhesus macaques and humans. they supposedly branched off from our common ancestors 25 million years ago. chimps are dated at 6 million years ago. so we diverged from chimps four times faster than we did from those cute little rhesus monkeys ? GTFOH. thats ludicrous according to the CLAIMS OF EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES!
also, the chimp genome was not sequenced from scratch. human dna was used as a scaffold making the findings slanted towards the researchers bias in the first damn place.
and there are huge gaps that were NOT reported such as: the chimp genome is 12% larger than humans, chimps have genes humans DONT have and vice versa (this was not explained) and there are chunks of unknown regions in the chimpanzee genome (like humans). the original smart dumb ? couldntnt explain it so they called it "junk DNA". the function of this "junk dna" in chimps and human are frequently being s=discovered and obscured because they further INVALIDATE the basis of evolution would be genetic similarities.
you ? are not as smart as you act and im here to pull your skirts up. -
Sorry. I must have just misunderstood all your mumbo jumbo.
That's an easy one. Obviously the transition stage was less suited to whatever environment and died out. By died out I mean was bred out of (or into) our gene pool. It's happened more than once and with many different species. That's why it's called survival of the fittest.
yeah ? . thats what i thought. u cant counter me with sound reasoning so im speaking mumbo jumbo, right? lol -
someone please explain to me how monkeys evolved over the years into humans, yet there are still monkeys and humans, but none of the stages in between walkin around
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. This species they share was neither a monkey nor was it human. One path lead to monkeys and one to apes. Amongst the apes one species is humans. -
that ? fallacious. we share 70 -90 % of the same dna as mice. bats and horses have more common dna than cows and horses. its not about the similarity of genes as it is what genes are active or inactive.
chimps and humans are supposed to be like 98- 99 % similar genetically right? so is language, art, music, mathematics, technology, philosophy, animal husbandry, agriculture, and a moral and spiritual capacity in that 1-2% gap? soft tissue morphology and brain biochemistry too?
so where did the 98-99% figure come about anyway?
and why is it ignored that a 2006 study by i.u. geneticist matthew hahn discovered that there is instead a 6% gap as opposed to 1-2 % gap? because richard gibbs, director of the baylor college of medicine's human genome sequencing center in houston established that there is a 93% similarity between rhesus macaques and humans. they supposedly branched off from our common ancestors 25 million years ago. chimps are dated at 6 million years ago. so we diverged from chimps four times faster than we did from those cute little rhesus monkeys ? GTFOH. thats ludicrous according to the CLAIMS OF EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES!
also, the chimp genome was not sequenced from scratch. human dna was used as a scaffold making the findings slanted towards the researchers bias in the first damn place.
and there are huge gaps that were NOT reported such as: the chimp genome is 12% larger than humans, chimps have genes humans DONT have and vice versa (this was not explained) and there are chunks of unknown regions in the chimpanzee genome (like humans). the original smart dumb ? couldntnt explain it so they called it "junk DNA". the function of this "junk dna" in chimps and human are frequently being s=discovered and obscured because they further INVALIDATE the basis of evolution would be genetic similarities.
you ? are not as smart as you act and im here to pull your skirts up.
The 1% number comes from a 1975 study which tracked alignment sequencing to determine the difference. Hahn showed that several other factors produced differences however we have yet to understand a solid foundation between genotype and phenotype relationship. The genetic similarity listed are based on genotype. The Gibbs worked used the alignment sequencing technique to produce its difference as well. So the 7% difference compares to the 1.5% difference from the 1975 study. This is in line with the time difference. -
This is the actual study by Hahn and other regarding the Rhesus monkey
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/222.full -
The 1% number comes from a 1975 study which tracked alignment sequencing to determine the difference. Hahn showed that several other factors produced differences however we have yet to understand a solid foundation between genotype and phenotype relationship. The genetic similarity listed are based on genotype. The Gibbs worked used the alignment sequencing technique to produce its difference as well. So the 7% difference compares to the 1.5% difference from the 1975 study. This is in line with the time difference.
break that down how that makes up for those 19 million years. -
yeah ? . thats what i thought. u cant counter me with sound reasoning so im speaking mumbo jumbo, right? lol
Nah, fagmo. I misunderstood you because i was trying to interpret some kind of point out of all that ? you were writing. When you made it clear that you were just talking random I realized i was just giving you the benefit of the doubt before by assuming that you were actually talking about something and not simply some ol' white cracka blah blah most high blah blah.
BTW your view on evolution is obvious - you don't believe it's true. I don't understand how your view is any different than some uneducated religious hillbilly living in the mountains yet you want to be the one talking about blindly following devil crackas. -
break that down how that makes up for those 19 million years.
1.5% difference between chimps and humans using sequence alignment
7% difference between Rhesus monkey and humans using the sequence alignment method
6 million years ago chimps/bonobos/humans diverge
25 mya monkeys and apes diverge
1.5/6 = .25
7/25 = .28
These ratios are relatively equivalent. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Sounds like religion to me. You just have a different concept from others. You follow manuscripts that offer a mythical rendition of the creation of the world along with guides to live by which is the prerequisite for being religious. What you are not, is part of a Church which would be considered Organized religion. I understand that white ? was created by Michelangelo, but did you know that he didn't agree with that ? either? he studied science and created technologies while others were engrossed in their myths.
You are wrong once again and you still don't get it. And as far as Michaelangelo, yes he studied science, but not as extensively as his counterpart Leonardo DaVinci who was more consistent than him, being the period they were in (the Renaissance). But even with Michaelangelo and the rest of those Renaissance artists they still had an anthropomorphic view of the Creator being that he was working his arts within the system of the Roman Catholics, with was Euro-centric and how they viewed it..which is religion and it's not the same as spirituality. I wouldn't expect you to understand you're because you viewing it the same way they are, even though you don't have no beliefs in it. So, I guess the subjects they used in their painting and sculptures was "science and technology" too? -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »You are wrong once again and you still don't get it. And as far as Michaelangelo, yes he studied science, but not as extensively as his counterpart Leonardo DaVinci who was more consistent than him, being the period they were in (the Renaissance). But even with Michaelangelo and the rest of those Renaissance artists they still had an anthropomorphic view of the Creator being that he was working his arts within the system of the Roman Catholics, with was Euro-centric and how they viewed it..which is religion and it's not the same as spirituality. I wouldn't expect you to understand you're because you viewing it the same way they are, even though you don't have no beliefs in it. So, I guess the subjects they used in their painting and sculptures was "science and technology" too?
Actually the anatomy of the human body was said to have been placed inside the Sistine Chapel. It's a theory really but i wouldn't hold on to theories with no verified proof unlike you.
http://www.sodahead.com/living/michelangelos-secret-message-in-the-sistine-chapel/blog-333373/
Michelangelo studied anatomy which was forbidden by the church so no, he wasn't thinking the same as every euro at the time.
I mentioned him to state that he wasn't with the organized religion of the day. He just went with the flow as most in that day had to do so they wouldn't be thrown on the fire. I also mentioned that he created the white ? as commissioned by the church. Does it matter how far he went went with science? He went and that's what matters. Wtf does Leonardo Da vinci (who was European also) have to do with my post? Bottom line is, you believe in ? and follow transcripts that give you order in your life. You're religious.
It really doesn't matter to me how you view ? . You're still offering me no evidence other then the views of men, anthropomorphic or not. Spirituality is a funny word you use to say i believe in this ? (earlier unabridged version), but not the euro version (cuz i hate white people). -
If it doesn't matter to you then why are you so hard nosed in the denial of YHWH?FuriousOne wrote: »Actually the anatomy of the human body was said to have been placed inside the Sistine Chapel.
I mentioned him to state that he wasn't with the organized religion of the day. He just went with the flow as most in that day had to do so they wouldn't be thrown on the fire. I also mentioned that he created the white ? as commissioned by the church. Does it matter how far he went? He went and that's what matters. Wtf does Leonardo Da vinci (who was European also) have to do with my post. Bottom line, you believe in ? and follow transcripts that give you order in your life.
Your religious. It really doesn't matter to me how you view ? . That's how they viewed it and others viewed it different, so what. Your still offering me no evidence other then the views of men, anthropomorphic or not. Spirituality is a funny word you use to say i believe in this ? (earlier unabridged version), but not the euro version (cuz i hate white people)
http://www.sodahead.com/living/michelangelos-secret-message-in-the-sistine-chapel/blog-333373/
I'm not but you're the religious one and others like you are because you still lean on the views of science and technology and the men that are involved in it and taking their views and internalize your position have a very strong belief i.e. faith that's there is no Creator.
It seems like it matters to you when you're assuming what I am, when you still don't know the difference. And I don't hate white people. -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »If it doesn't matter to you then why are you so hard nosed in the denial of YHWH?
I'm not but you're the religious one and others like you are because you still lean on the views of science and technology and the men that are involved in it and taking their views and internalize your position have a very strong belief i.e. faith that's there is no Creator.
It seems like it matters to you when you're assuming what I am, when you still don't know the difference. And I don't hate white people.
Because this ? influences the world ? . If people don't question it loudly, then delusional ass ? like you can make policy to ? up my way of life (that goes the same with politics). That may not be your objective, but there are too many who are all to willing to imply their draconian rule. Also, i like to debate on various topics and religion is a big one since i had to deal with it all my life on various scales. How can i be in denial when you never showed me anything to deny. Lol at you are indeed religious. You're hate on for science isn't gonna work on me. I don't hold on to theories like that ? is gonna save me.
You're projecting your own issues on me, yet again. I also stated why i don't subscribe to your ideas do to the nature of the universe as we know it (but that's my theory and i may be wrong, but i base my theories off of observable evidence and applicable concepts that i work with daily such as programing. The origin of things are unknown to everyone including you, you special Olympics ass hurler of ? . Technology is a tool like a hammer. I can ? you with a hammer. -
"YOUR way of life?" I laughed out loud at that. I have no reason to invade YOUR way of life, nor I don't want to because that's not my thing. You got me ? up.FuriousOne wrote: »Because this ? influences the world ? . If people don't question it loudly, then delusional ass ? like you can make policy to ? up my way of life. I don't want to live by your moldy ass manuscripts. How can i be in denial when you never showed me anything to deny. Lol at you are indeed religious. You're hate on for science isn't gonna work on me. I don't hold on to theories like that ? is gonna save me.
You're projecting your own issues on me, yet again. I also stated why i don't subscribe to your ideas do to the nature of the universe as we know it. The origin of things are unknown to everyone including you, you special Olympics ass hurler of ? . Technology is a tool like a hammer. I can ? you with a hammer.
Far from delusional, but you're still a religious atheist and you know it. Don't be upset though...how you know what I've experienced in following YHWH? I have no issues, yet you do with people who choose to follow and it's bothering you...why I don't know, but it's not getting you anywhere but bitterness. And I don't hate science because in the unexplained theories, or as you say those "origin of things that are unknown to everyone" still connects to the Creator, that you don't believe. To you in your mind, you probably think these theories in science just happens outta nowhere. Yeah..I see through you. I understand man..you in life been dealt with a few bad hands and because of it you gotta point the finger and blame and ridicule.
It's aight though. You're a positive atheist. You're positive you believe there is no Creator. Do yourself a favor and look up Anthony Flew. -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »"YOUR way of life?" I laughed out loud at that. I have no reason to invade YOUR way of life, nor I don't want to because that's not my thing. You got me ? up.That may not be your objective
Reading comprehension ? . It may not be your thing, but you can't deny that others would have no qualms. This is justI have no issues, yet you do with people who choose to follow and it's bothering you
You lie. You do have issues with atheist, and science, and technology and other peoples positions. You can't accuse me of following anyone or anything. If you knew me, you would know how silly you sound.
There you go passing your theories off as fact again. There are theories that the universe was always here and there are theories that it came from nothing. Both are based on scientific observation and math. Neither are absolute and no one would be fool enough to make a religion out of them (unless they were just that fool enough)origin of things that are unknown to everyone" still connects to the CreatorDo yourself a favor and look up Anthony Flew.
You told me about this lame duck before. He couldn't find his proof in science so he chose religion because you can believe blindly. That's the issue he faces, and he was a fool for looking for absolution in science in the first place.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
I like arguing about religion and it's inconsistencies and fallacies. It affects everyone, so it's an important subject that should be discussed honestly. I can't have these conversations in life because people get to scared and start quoting the bible. I can talk politics so it's not much of a focus for me on here even though i do partake. Race is another topic you would find me focusing on because i don't get a chance to argue with white people without me wanting to assault them in life.
Everything else you said doesn't have ? to do with this conversation. Whether i have a personal beef or not holds no bearing on the fact that you offer no proof. There seems to be evidence to refute all of your claims about the nature of the universe as it pertains to your theory of a higher being creating us. So what do you do? You attempt to invalidate the entire process. -
FuriousOne wrote: »
You lie. You do have issues with atheist, and science, and technology and other peoples positions. You can't accuse me of following anyone or anything. If you knew me, you would know how silly you sound.
There you go passing your theories off as fact again. There are theories that the universe was always here and there are theories that it came from nothing. Both are based on scientific observation and math. Neither are absolute and no one would be fool enough to make a religion out of them (unless they were just that fool enough)
You told me about this lame duck before. He couldn't find his proof in science so he chose religion because you can believe blindly. That's the issue he faces, and he was a fool for looking for absolution in science in the first place.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
I like arguing about religion and it's inconsistencies and fallacies. It affects everyone, so it's an important subject that should be discussed honestly. I can't have these conversations in life because people get to scared and start quoting the bible. I can talk politics so it's not much of a focus for me on here even though i do partake. Race is another topic you would find me focusing on because i don't get a chance to argue with white people without me wanting to assault them in life.
Everything else you said doesn't have ? to do with this conversation. Whether i have a personal beef or not holds no bearing on the fact that you offer no proof. There seems to be evidence to refute all of your claims about the nature of the universe as it pertains to your theory of a higher being creating us. So what do you do? You attempt to invalidate the entire process.
Yet all your claims of saying there is no Creator you got from others and is not original because you and many others like yourself must have proof that a Creator doesn't exist because you can't SEE it. The same way you don't see gravity, even though there's a law that abides for gravity with a theory that explains gravity you still can't see it..can you? The wind for example...we have all the instruments to measure wind speed, we can also SEE the trees blowing, clouds moving and so forth, so it's safe to assume that wind exists, right? So basically if you can't see something, but it's verified through these instruments and theories, right? Is it safe to say that you can easily accept this right?
