21 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper Knob"""However nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below some tens of thousands;[9] there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent there is at least one generation with no female offspring (and men do not pass on their mothers' mitochondrial DNA to their children). By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes at least one line of descent to each person which is purely matrilineal."""
That's incorrect Manny, this should clear it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallacies
This is quite interesting as it states that the human population has never dropped below some tens of thousands. Hummm..... If not from an original two parents, where did we all begin? From mulitple humans that all evolved from seperate lines that just happened to evolve at the same time and to the same place on earth and that they just happened to be compatible and able to reproduce?
And it says that one generation had no females at all? Humm....How did the human race continue with no females?
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75Actually there are examples that illustrate evolution of species in action.
No denying that but no species can cross over to another species and reproduce nor do we see any proof at all on this planet that a species is in the middle of some change from one species to another. If evolution were true we should see that all around us. But nada, none, doesn't exist!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
21 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI did read it and maybe you need to reread it. They are still gulls which are still birds. No proof of evolution at all. I'd say good try but it actully is a silly one.
Actually there are examples that illustrate evolution of species in action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Now show me a gull that somehow mated with a, lets say a bat, that can hunt at night and which would make the gull even a better hunter and then we'll talk.
21 Nov 10
1 edit
Very often I see postings with a text reminding of this: "I don't believe in evolution, because I don't understand it!" Well, I never read this exact formulation, but the very essence is like that.
If you don't understand the meaning of 'species', 'abiogenesis', 'fossils' and such, then don't pretend that you understand evolution, don't even discuss evolution until you know the basis of evolution.
Some creatioinsts believe that the Earth is only thousands of years old, some believes that there were Humans walking around trillions of years ago (hundreds of times older than the Universe itself), some think that written language was invented when Humans began to talk, some believs that Humans are not primates, and criticize evolution because they say that the modern ape was our ancestor (which it is not), that bats got its radar hearing in a jiffie, the human eye is a perfection, and the whole human body is a perfect organism, that Humans is teh end of the evolution and that evolution was programmed to produce Humans.
The very same creationists don't know much of evoution, and put a pride of not open a book of evolution, because they know it all anyway, knowing nothing.
If I told you that god doesn't exist, because I don't know anything about him, and this is a proof that god doesn't exist - I would be laughed at. With a certain right! And yet, creationists use exactly the same argument: "I don't know much about evolution, it just doesn't make sense, so therefore I don't believe in it, it is false." Do we laugh?
Go read up about evolution, then discuss!
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75You wanted evidence of a species evolving into another species, the link I gave shows precisely that. Silly? No, silly is thinking that 'bird' is a species.
I did read it and maybe you need to reread it. They are still gulls which are still birds. No proof of evolution at all. I'd say good try but it actully is a silly one.
Now show me a gull that somehow mated with a, lets say a bat, that can hunt at night and which would make the gull even a better hunter and then we'll talk.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhy would any reasonably wise person that has a decent amount of common sense waist their time persuing energy on something that common sense tells them is not true?
Very often I see postings with a text reminding of this: "I don't believe in evolution, because I don't understand it!" Well, I never read this exact formulation, but the essence is this.
If you don't understand the meaning of 'species', 'abiogenesis', 'fossils' and such, then don't pretend that you understand evolution, don't even discuss evolution un ...[text shortened]... t, it is false." Do we laugh?
Go read up about evolution, then discuss!
One only has to study it "a little" to see the myriads of problems with it. And then when we ask for proof we are shown some web site that proves it when, again, common sense see the holes in it.
No matter how much you guys play with words, theories, hypotheses, maybes, it could have, we think, we feel it could, etc, etc, etc, the dots just don't line up no matter how much you move them around.
And your so obsessed to make it work you keep overlooking the flaws in the hope that someday you'll find the answers that just don't exist. That is a true a waist of time.....
21 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75And now you demonstrate very clearly what I wrote in my posting.
Why would any reasonably wise person that has a decent amount of common sense waist their time persuing energy on something that common sense tells them is not true?
I don't discuss Marxism, because I don't know much about Marxism.
I don't discuss economy of South-America, becasue I don't know much about economy of South-America.
I don't discuss the trinity idea of Christianity, because I don't know much about the trinity idea of Christianity.
I wouldn't discuss evolution, if I didn't know much about evolution. But this is what creationists do. And still they love to discuss evolution. The result is nothing else that they demonstrate rather clearly their low knowledge about evolution theory.
Please go and read up a little before discussing it.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatNo disrespect meant to you at all either but it just amazes me how ones can believe in evolution. Sorry. I have to let it out at times.
What is it that you find difficult to believe? That I am able to talk to you respectfully despite the fact that I disagree with you?
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't know much about nuclear bombs but it's a fact they exist.
And now you demonstrate very clearly what I wrote in my posting.
I don't discuss Marxism, because I don't know much about Marxism.
I don't discuss economy of South-America, becasue I don't know much about economy of South-America.
I don't discuss the trinity idea of Christianity, because I don't know much about the trinity idea of Christianity.
I wo ...[text shortened]... nowledge about evolution theory.
Please go and read up a little before discussing it.
I don't know much about the ozone layer, but it's a fact it exist.
I will never know all the theories of evolution because I don't have to and that's because the few things I do now are full of wholes.
So what's the point here?
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75Fair enough. Personally I find it immeasurably more credible than scripture but nevertheless try to remain respectful towards it's proponents while they remain so to myself.
No disrespect meant to you at all either but it just amazes me how ones can believe in evolution. Sorry. I have to let it out at times.
21 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75You don't deny nuclear bombs, but you do deny evolution.
I don't know much about nuclear bombs but it's a fact they exist.
I don't know much about the ozone layer, but it's a fact it exist.
I will never know all the theories of evolution because I don't have to and that's because the few things I do now are full of wholes.
So what's the point here?
You don't deny the ozone layer, but you do deny evolution.
You use your very little knowledge about evolution to try to disprove it. You fail.
My point I have already declared.