Evolution or Creation?

[Andro Man]

It may seem logical, but it's wrong. Chimps have basically the same genetic make-up as we do. Chemically, we are made of the same stuff. That is one of the great reasons for believing in evolution.

Again, I wish to be respectful, but I'm not sure why you think that or where you got it from. Natural selection works by reinforcing the positive mutations and eliminating the negative ones. (Even scientist with reservations about evolutionary theory agree that on a small scale natural selection can be seen to reinforce positive mutation.)

Let me give you just one quick example. Do you know that there are people who are basically immune to AIDS? They have a mutation called "CCR5," or more properly, they lack the CCR5 receptor to which HIV viruses attach. (Here is an article about it.)

Wouldn't you agree that that is a positive mutation? This is a genetic alteration that protects from HIV infection, and it exists in about 5% of the Northern European population.

My point is only that many of your assumptions about how natural selection works are incorrect. I know that natural selection is not the same thing as proof of evolution, but even the most skeptical debater I know recognizes that many examples of positive mutation exist.

Is that a mutation or a human characteristic. That's the benefit of 2 sexes. The plague firstly wiped out initially 1/2 to 3/4 of the population of Europe, but every successive time it got less and less, because a succesful characteristic procreated coz the others died off..

There weren't X-men, they were humans that happened to have a characteristic that they wer resistant to this. Like some ppl have blue eyes and others have brown

A positive mutation would be like something out of waterworld or the fantastic four. As I said before the go go gadget neck mutation (for the giraffe)to survive the food that's in the trees, doesn't seem likely.


The fact that every living thing on earth has characteristics similar to man doesn't make it so that we've evolved from them.

 

[fortiesfun]

Is that a mutation or a human characteristic. That's the benefit of 2 sexes. The plague firstly wiped out initially 1/2 to 3/4 of the population of Europe, but every successive time it got less and less, because a succesful characteristic procreated coz the others died off..

Now you're just pulling my leg, right? Of course the absence of CCR5 is a mutation. (I could see the unlikely argument that additions to the basic cell structure were just characteristics that got intensified, but absence? That has to be caused by mutation.) By the way, aren't you now making the opposite argument that you made in your last post, that natural selection would have no natural benefits?

A positive mutation would be like something out of waterworld or the fantastic four. As I said before the go go gadget neck mutation (for the giraffe)to survive the food that's in the trees, doesn't seem likely.

If Gadget, Waterworld or Fantastic Four is your source for genetic theory, I can see why you are having so much trouble grasping this thread.

The fact that every living thing on earth has characteristics similar to man doesn't make it so that we've evolved from them.

But that isn't what you asked, nor what I answered. You stated positively that chimps and humans had no DNA in common as your proof that evolution didn't exist. You were wrong about the DNA relationship, which suggests strongly that you were wrong about evolution also. As has been the case throughout this thread, the second someone corrects your basic knowledge you change course and suggest the reverse of the proof you just offered still doesn't support evolutionary theory, in which case your example ws just silly. Either you bring up a lot of irrelevant data, or you just toss a lot of stuff out there as "fact" without the slightest idea what you are saying or trying to prove.

 

[Andro Man]

Now you're just pulling my leg, right? Of course the absence of CCR5 is a mutation. (I could see the unlikely argument that additions to the basic cell structure were just characteristics that got intensified, but absence? That has to be caused by mutation.) By the way, aren't you now making the opposite argument that you made in your last post, that natural selection would have no natural benefits?
I'm showing the benefits of having 2 sexes to give a more varied species, not because the ones that survive are Ubermenschen/ superior in some way to ones that don't. But that in the case of a random event like a disease, they won't all die.
It's like saying the Jews that survived Auswitz were superior to the writers, scientists, musicians, doctors that randomly got gassed or shot.
And even if that's a POSITIVE mutation because of AIDS coz who's to say it doesn't serve a vital function within the body?(like saying when a woman's breast is removed, at least it can't become cancerous). Even if this 'positive' mutation has some added value(and the ones without this mutation don't procreate/survive; and the ones with the mutation only mate with the ones without), this is still no proof that you can get from such minor mutation to a completely new species.

If Gadget, Waterworld or Fantastic Four is your source for genetic theory, I can see why you are having so much trouble grasping this thread.

Nope, more like reductio ad absurdum. Yet again the typical evolutionary argument that people who don't believe it don't grasp it. Like if you don't grasp how the concept of time(billions of years, who really can?) can give life to something that wasn't or make a species into a different one.......then you're just plain stupid.

But that isn't what you asked, nor what I answered. You stated positively that chimps and humans had no DNA in common as your proof that evolution didn't exist. You were wrong about the DNA relationship, which suggests strongly that you were wrong about evolution also. As has been the case throughout this thread, the second someone corrects your basic knowledge you change course and suggest the reverse of the proof you just offered still doesn't support evolutionary theory, in which case your example ws just silly. Either you bring up a lot of irrelevant data, or you just toss a lot of stuff out there as "fact" without the slightest idea what you are saying or trying to prove.

I didn't say that, what I said was that every living thing on the planet has elements in common. And obviously things that have more in common will look more like another. But that doesn't proove that they evolved from that thing that they share DNA with.

That chimps have DNA that are uniquely chimp and humans that are uniquely human and that this hasn't changed.

I thought it was the evolutionaries that were tossing their fossils out as evidence for the evolution, claiming there is ample evidence to proove transitional types, while the actual paleontological evidence shows that new species appear suddenly with no hint of gradual change. And not only that, they remain relatively unchanged until present day or until they become extinct.

 

[simcha]

Dude,

Making your type larger just makes it look like you're yelling. The large type also makes it look like you need reading glasses. It doesn't make your arguments look any more valid.

 

[Drifterwood]

Giraffes have the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do. In fact all vertebrates have seven cervical vertebrae.

I wonder why we don't all look the same?

 

[Andro Man]

Dude,

Making your type larger just makes it look like you're yelling. The large type also makes it look like you need reading glasses. It doesn't make your arguments look any more valid.

Absurd, I don't want to quote every single passage, it takes long enough replying. The type isn't so much bigger, I thought it would be obvious that I use a different type to distinguish mine from who I'm quoting.
So now it's coz I don't believe in evolution theory I'm not only stupid, but I also resort to childish tactics????

Come on, think about first please before saying something that ridiculous

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Come on, think about first please before saying something that ridiculous

Andro Man, when you make your font this large, it does indeed seem like you are shouting.
And it's easy to imagine why you might wish to shout, since your arguments are cutting no ice with anyone.

 

[Drifterwood]

Come on, think about first please before saying something that ridiculous

If only.

 

[fortiesfun]

It's All in Your Head

Momma died young giving birth to a son
In a home for wayward girls
Daddy was sidewalk, soapbox preacher
Looking forward to the end of the world
Every Friday night he’d pick a Jesus fight
Down at the local pool hall
Racking up souls condemning all those
Caught behind the eight ball
He said I preach for the light - the light shows the way
Don’t ever trust what the government say
We never walked on the moon
Elvis ain’t dead
You ain’t going crazy
It’s all in your head

Lucy was a messed up, dressed up waitress
With a slightly tarnished heart of gold
She wasn’t half bad for a new step momma
As far as step momma’s go
Daddy knew she was the one as he baked in the sun
In a parking lot preaching the truth
Up shot her hand and she cried, oh, man
I feel it, yes, I feel it I do
It’s been revealed to me down deep in my soul
There were two shooters on the grassy knoll
We never walked on the moon
Elvis ain’t dead
You ain’t going crazy
It’s all in your head
Let us sing

It’s all interpretation
To find the truth you gotta read between the lines
Work out your own salvation
That narrow path is hard to define
Heaven’s more than a place
It’s a state of mind

In his quest for truth
Daddy was moved by the spirit
To take up a snake
In a moment of doubt the venom turned out
Stronger than daddy’s faith
But I’ll never forget his dying breath
The last words that he said
We never walked on the moon
Elvis ain’t dead
You ain’t going crazy
It’s all in your head
Let me tell ya

It’s all interpretation
To find the truth you gotta read between the lines
Work out your own salvation
That narrow path is had to define
Heaven’s more than a place
It’s a state of mind

 

[Andro Man]

Andro Man, when you make your font this large, it does indeed seem like you are shouting.
And it's easy to imagine why you might wish to shout, since your arguments are cutting no ice with anyone.

I thought it would be more pleasing to the eye, but this is obviously not about my arguments or about my typo, it's a pity these days your nazi friends can't shut me up huh?

Anyone can compare my writing to yours or simcha. I suppose the next thing you'll want me to do is write semi visible(like you sometimes do), anyways.... what is coming out of this isn't anything debattable, only value judgements and sisi talk:" Boohoo he's writing too big"

Too big is what you ppl are doing, compare mine with the docs and there really isn't much contrast

 

[Ethyl]

You'll never find an intelligent Designer. :biggrin1:

I am expecting a very good spanking for this one.

:spank:

 

[SassySpy]

Ive been following this thread, albeit without comment, as my jury's still out on this one. But Ive a very open mind, and the wealth of intelligent comments here is mind boggling. But! I happened upon some website somewhere in the WWW and found this.. tongue in cheek? maybe. :tongue:

Evolution - a theory

It has been postulated that early man (that is man from the early days of human evolution, rather than those who wake early each day and frighten innocent women folk) preferred to perform sexual penetration of the female from the rear. The writer is not aware of the basis for this theory or of any evidence to confirm or deny it but it's a nice theory and some vestige of this characteristic does seem to remain.

It is further claimed that the proportions of the female's rump was directly related to the popularity of the individual female in the procreation stakes. Natural selection (evolution) therefore favoured the female with the more generous rear.

All was fine for a while, the females developed enhanced posteriors while the males became generally happier, at least in this respect. However it wasn't long before the enhancement of the female rear reached the stage where the male found it increasingly difficult to become successfully engaged.

The more inventive and adventurous males soon discovered a practical solution to this problem - face to face penetration. However the appealing rump was missed and to compensate a desirable suitor the females took to developing breasts early rather than, like most of the rest of the animal world, on an as required basis.

And so with time this became the normal mode of access. The now redundant huge rumps returned to more manageable proportions whilst the newly significant breasts could flourish as an attraction (as well as boasting of the owners ability to rear a large brood) without adversely affecting procreation.

The modern intellectual male is of course able to demonstrate a more rational approach to these areas of the female anatomy and appreciate quality when not accompanied by quantity. And happily gets the best of both worlds!​

 

[joejack]

The logic escapes me....God=Darwin?

This is why you will be eternally damned. In fact, I think the devil has sent you from hell to test the faith of the true believers of God's revelation. Please return to Hades so this thread will mercifully end. There is no hope of redemption for you, Android Man. AMEN!

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Too big is what you ppl are doing, compare mine with the docs and there really isn't much contrast

If you say so.

 

[50%more]

Ive been following this thread, albeit without comment, as my jury's still out on this one. But Ive a very open mind, and the wealth of intelligent comments here is mind boggling. But! I happened upon some website somewhere in the WWW and found this.. tongue in cheek? maybe. :tongue:​

Evolution - a theory​

It has been postulated that early man (that is man from the early days of human evolution, rather than those who wake early each day and frighten innocent women folk) preferred to perform sexual penetration of the female from the rear. The writer is not aware of the basis for this theory or of any evidence to confirm or deny it but it's a nice theory and some vestige of this characteristic does seem to remain.​

It is further claimed that the proportions of the female's rump was directly related to the popularity of the individual female in the procreation stakes. Natural selection (evolution) therefore favoured the female with the more generous rear.​

All was fine for a while, the females developed enhanced posteriors while the males became generally happier, at least in this respect. However it wasn't long before the enhancement of the female rear reached the stage where the male found it increasingly difficult to become successfully engaged.​

The more inventive and adventurous males soon discovered a practical solution to this problem - face to face penetration. However the appealing rump was missed and to compensate a desirable suitor the females took to developing breasts early rather than, like most of the rest of the animal world, on an as required basis.​

And so with time this became the normal mode of access. The now redundant huge rumps returned to more manageable proportions whilst the newly significant breasts could flourish as an attraction (as well as boasting of the owners ability to rear a large brood) without adversely affecting procreation.​

The modern intellectual male is of course able to demonstrate a more rational approach to these areas of the female anatomy and appreciate quality when not accompanied by quantity. And happily gets the best of both worlds!​

Behavioral biologist have isolated certain sexual behaviors that are based on sexual cues. In birds the brighter more healthy looking plumage of males is a sexual cue to females. In the human male the view of a woman from behind when she bends forward exposing her mons pubis is a sexual cue that most guys recognize. This position taken by a woman often indicated her submission to the sexual advances of the male. The similarity between this and large breasts is the perception of cleavage.

Anthropologist have been researching when and why missionary position became the predominant position for human intercourse. It is assumed that since all mammals have intercourse in the "doggy" position, that humans also emerged from exhibiting only this type of intercourse into utilizing different positions. In his book "The Ascent of Man" Jacob Bronowski touches on this subject. In the movie "Quest For Fire" there is a more anecdotal treatment of this succession.

 

[50%more]

If you say so.

Senor in regard to Andro Man I have a suggestion.

"Never argue with idiots
They drag you down to their level
And beat you with experience."

 

[Andro Man]

This is why you will be eternally damned. In fact, I think the devil has sent you from hell to test the faith of the true believers of God's revelation. Please return to Hades so this thread will mercifully end. There is no hope of redemption for you, Android Man. AMEN!

If you're serious you're a religious fanatic that gives religion a bad name. Seems to me to be pretentious to even think you can grasp what God wants, or speaking for God.
Just because religion was exploited in the past(and present joejack for political purposes and mindcontrol doesn't make it bad in itself. And eventhough science has been abused by materialists and eventhough evolutiontheory isn't backed up with evidence or clearly demonstrated(apart from in the mind of the artist who can create drawings based on incomplete eroded fossils)that doesn't mean that science is bad.
I think there should be room for both.

We're more than our physical bodies, of course you can't demonstrate that materialisticly but you can experience it. Do we have a soul or are we just matters in motion without a purpose?

Choose whatever you want to believe but don't let the materialists make you believe that what they say is more than a belief, be it in nothing at all.
Don't mistake this for science

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Sounds like words of wisdom to me.

I believe the book "The Red Queen" talks a bit more about sexual selection in mammals. It's not a bad read at all, although it doesn't have an extensive chapter on penis size selection!

 

[Andro Man]

Senor in regard to Andro Man I have a suggestion.

"Never argue with idiots
They drag you down to their level
And beat you with experience."

I understand I'm new here and you see me as the outsider, but you're clearly the idot. The only time I used the slightly bigger typo was when there were a lot of things I had to reply to. If I wanted to make my arguments look better, or more important or whatever idiotic things you might have been thinking, don't you think I would have done it more consistantly.
Besides, there are ppl here that consistently use a bigger typo, I don't hear anyone giving them any grief about it...

So again, idiot, this isn't about the typo or my arguments

 

[50%more]

This is why you will be eternally damned. In fact, I think the devil has sent you from hell to test the faith of the true believers of God's revelation. Please return to Hades so this thread will mercifully end. There is no hope of redemption for you, Android Man. AMEN!

I thought Andro was a referrence to androgynous.