sorry to interupt, but science doesnt exclude religious view. and please, this is a discussion forum, we should allow others to express their point of view.
and this

jst proves how narrow minded you are.

This post has been edited by styrwr91: Jun 21 2009, 10:41 AM

Yea of coz he's allowed to express their point. Then I'm not allow to reply to his point?

I might be narrow minded because apparently the other theory of the origins of humanity is just plain illogical and doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

hmm...you have your point, but then religious people have their own way of proving Adam and Eve as the first human, dont you think its bit offensive to ask Salimbest83 like this?
its quite offensive you know, at least to me. but then, darwin's theory doesnt only have human evolutions, the main theory is evolution from fish to amphibians to reptile to bird to mammal and finally human.

this might broaden the discussion scope. Its evoluton, discus all of them, im optimistic about this discussion

Well I think I owe salimbest83 an apology then. I apologized salimbest83.

Yeap the main theory emphasizes on all organism, on how they evolve from reptile to amphibians to mammals etc. Not to humans only.

mmm, evolution... there was a clue that the first adam or eve came from africa (homosapiens) about 130000 years ago base on the skull found, in that time they probably walk on the same ground with the other sapien(neanderthal), wonder what was it like?? ... too bad only the strongest and dominant survived...even thou its not possible, i would love to see other type of homo exist until today

I completely reject all religious view regarding origins all life. I shall not continue the next sentence i have in mind because it will offend some people.

I also agree with NicJolin, this is a science discussion. If i remember correctly there is already a discussion on this in RWI based on religious views. So take it there?


Yeap, all life on earth evolved from single cell organisms.

so u agreed that ur from monkey, ape etc..
thats just ridiculos..

and yes second gen human starting from single cell..
sperm + egg..
not from some cell like in Spore..

Human is the most perfect being that was created by Him.
thats the fact..

You're just another misinformed religious fanatic who don't even read up on things before you decide to cast it away due to believe on some ridiculous supreme being.

What pure arrogance you have i thinking human is most perfect. Far from it. Cockroaches are far more adept a species, they have been around for 100million of years and humans have only been around for less then 300000 years.

Fact my ass. Don't bring your religious rhetoric in this with the capital H in him.

This post has been edited by befitozi: Jun 21 2009, 05:24 PM

you do realize that all the theory on how a species 'evolve' to another species are basically conjectures with no real evidence apart from "well logically speaking... it should crossover to the next level of evolution". for one thing, you can never run experiments that can be repeated elsewhere to prove the point where such evolution take place, and turn the hypothesis into a theory, which means to say, technically, evolution is not a theory. why not? because the said evolution process takes millions of years, if it ever does occur, thus a real and proper scientific experiment can never be conducted.

Darwin's was all about natural selection. since the fittest survive, shouldn't there be thousands of mishaps along the way which didn't survive at every generation of the species? why isn't there samples of proto-human that sprouted all possible mutation along the way to choosing the best fit? i would imagine that it would make sense to have thousands of contemporary proto-humans along the way to leave some skeletal evidence, yet along the way, we're seeing rather consistent development.

Some scientist theorized that every living being on earth share a common sequence of gene, not all of our genes but a one or maybe more segment. Wouldn't that be a good proof that we're all descendant from a 'prime' living being? The only way to have same copies of gene naturally is through mitosis and biological reproduction.

Natural selection is actually what created modern human. eg. Neanderthal was eliminated in the selection process ages ago.

Human specie is actually young compared to many other species in the world. Say about 200000 years old. Evolutions can take millions of years so is it true to say that we're not evolving? 200000 years in millions is like a mere blink of an eye.

Proto-human probably existed, but the difference from us is so minute that we can't tell them apart. Maybe we have more body hair than we do now? We don't know. It'll still be a while before we can see a huge distinct difference in humans of the past and future.

i think there much evidence to debunk evolution theory.....
evolution should happen gradually right..?
but where is the fossils that show there a gradual changes or a link to relate each species from one another...there is too many missing link to relate each species.a new species didnt just spring out from the old ones but there should be changes that can be prove through archeology... and if any where is it...
correct me if im wrong here ......im here to learn

There are no such things as missing links, only intermediate forms.

Let's assume we have a series of populations/species that change over time.
A to B to C to D to E to F to G.

So the population millions of years ago was "A", and over time it changed to B, C, D, E, F, and presently we see it as "G".

Let's assume we have a fossil from "A" dated millions of years ago, to compare to "G".

Some people would argue that A and G aren't related because there are no fossils that connect them....but biologists would argue that the characters of A lead to the conclusion that it is on the evolutionary pathway to G.

Now, let's say that a fossil is discovered from "D". The press, BUT NOT THE BIOLOGISTS, say it's a "missing link". Hmmmm.... because now, as you can see, we have a missing link between A and D, and also between D and G. So we started with "one" missing link, and now we have "two"... in fact the more fossils we fill in, the more missing links we will have.... an interesting paradox!!!

So it's a no win situation this idea of a "missing link" unless you had a record of EVERY single individual from A to G over time.

That's the fallacy of arguing missing links. We do have INTERMEDIATE forms that show relationships, such as Archeopteryx (the bird/reptile fossil) and now we have "Ida".... and we expect to find a lot more of them.

If you want to learn try to go to http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html . It explore evolution/creationism controversy in unbias way

there are a lot but its not complete yet, there's still missing link in between..plus evolution took million of years to take place...

I wonder what connection do they seek? What difference do they look for in proto-humans? A tail? Hunchback-ish backbone like orangutans? Walks using arms?

C'mon like what the other had said, if u want to look for significant changes like those, its going to take couple of millions of years there. Don't think we can trace it back that long yah?

that is the problem.. you cannot take some theory and turn it into fact without hard evidence and proof....
anyone could say anything, just because it take even a billion year to see it changes you claimed it to be the facts...
how could nature could be so creative.... everything fall into its pieces so precise even it take a billion year .. by randomly, using the method of try and error...... that could be fatal to each species by the end all, species ended up exterminated

pardon my english~

So can you take religious claims for the origin of humans as fact?

...

True, evolution is indeed a theory. A theory describes everything in science which has been confirmed by evidence, and has become accepted. Otherwise it would be a hypothesis - just speculation.

So theories cover everything that is extremely well accepted, such as gravity (actually several theories), electromagnetism, thermodynamics, relativity, etc.

A 'law' is just a simplification or corollary of a theory. While the text of a theory may run to very many pages of description and derivation, a law is just a simple one-liner that sums up the essence (or part) of the theory. F=ma, that sort of thing. This a law is not an 'even more confirmed' theory, just a punch-line.

Scientific method demands permanent open-mindedness, as there may always be new evidence around the corner. Because of this, whatever is known just now cannot be regarded as the ultimate understanding, so is not a 'proof'. Science just doesn't do proofs, only validations or refutations.

So yes, evolution is a theory, and an extremely well validated one at that!

Evolution of a species don't always go in a single direction. They will branch out to adapt so it's very hard for a single species to go extinct due to a 'bad' evolution.

Take human wardrobe as analogy, human migrating to live closer to the equator will wear less while those living in the north pole will wear thick clothing.

tl:dr

I hate to say anti-religion comments but I guess the room for tolerance has been filled up.

You first said God created human, then you continue to say second generation human are created through biology(irony, science at work!). Wouldn't an 'al-mighty' creator figured out everything and just create 6 billion human that are immortal? It's so much easier than going through life and death.

So who created Mr.'al-mighty' then? Since judging by what you're trying to say every creation has a al mighty 'creator' behind them. So who's the creator of Mr.'al-mighty'? al-al-mighty?

We are talking about potential human EVOLUTION from the present and we're not debating whether human's has a religious or scientific origin. We're discussing the theory of evolution as a whole and whether human have to abide by such law or has technology hindered any potential for human evolution. When the thread say Evolution, it's obvious I am not putting religious discussion into here as proven by your hardline stand that evolution do not exist in religious point of view. Your religious comments IS NOT contributing any scientific discussion to this thread at all.

This post has been edited by SeaGates: Jun 21 2009, 09:08 PM

excuse me, but science (based on logic, numbers, deduction, experimentation, observation and most importantly required some soft of PROOF) most definitely do not play nice with religion (based on faith - meaning without proof)

---

Added on June 22, 2009, 1:41 amno we wont, the need to travel such huge distance in a short period is an artificial need driven my civilization. humans can survive well enough without the ability to travel from sydney to paris

---

Added on June 22, 2009, 1:46 amyou do know that those photos are photoshopped right? otherwise logically whatever museum thats housing them would be world famous and every biological text book would be re written?

and please show a 3rd party supporting evidence of your religious claims. (fyi, judaism, christianity and islam is considered as one)

---

Added on June 22, 2009, 2:08 ami believe that the human mind is incapable of comprehending large figures. what anti evolutionist is asking for is observable macro evolution, which is not possible. and science fiction/comics like xmen is not helping by saying "mutants are the next step in human evolution" and portraying normal people giving birth to someone who can shoot lazers out of their eyes and having super healing factors

micro evolution is generally observable in simple organism. ie: bacteria, fungus, insects, etc. producing offsprings that are more adapted to its environment as well as more resistant to drugs/poison that will kill its ancestors.

why is it more observable? 1. simpler genes, 2. shorter lifespan.

and also we are getting a lot of inference on stages of evolution and branching. look up hybrid species as well as ring species.

and some macro evolution is fairly evident from fossil samples, look up on the evolution of equines from their ancestors (with toes that slowly give way to hoofs) and pachyderms from their ancestors (pig sized creatures that look like mini tapirs)

for some "missing links" look up marsupials which give birth to very premature offsprings to platypus (mammals that lay eggs)

in fact the whole australia region is a great proof to evolution in that is separated long enough from the rest of the world for actual branching of species to show.

finally, as the term implied macro evolution is simply a summation of a huge amount of micro evolutions.

This post has been edited by lin00b: Jun 22 2009, 02:08 AM

I think evolution theory is crap. If it really is true, why dont we see monkeys turning into human anytime?

According to Darwin, humans evolve from apes then there must be some apes turning into human after so long right? The theory wont just stop after human exists