'proof' Of Evolution?
Teflon
Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20289Members
Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20289Members
in Discussions
These are just some things I've been pondering about possible evidence of evolution to creationists.
1) The way women carry children is obviously genetically designed for quadrapeds. The compression of organs around the hips is something nature tends to avoid. The transition to bipedal was obviously too fast for our genetics to compensate. Thus women still bear offspring similar to quadrapeds, with obvious consequences.
2) We have a tailbone WHY?
3) The presence of the appendix, used to digest fibrous foods like grass and leaves. The lack of consumption of fiber for thousands of years led to the gradual shrinking and diminishment of the appendix. In a few hundred years, it may be gone completely. If we never were like the animals and god just *poof* made us like we are, why would we have an appendix? It would never have been NEEDED.
4) Wisdom Teeth: Originally designed to come in and replace or supplement teeth that have been lost in ye olde days. Now wisdom teeth are an annoyance (Thank god I have none, another point), and an unnecessary one at that.
5) Little toes. Why do we even HAVE toes, for that matter? Monkeys do and they use them all the time. In fact, our skeletal structure of our feet are very VERY similar to a monkey's. Disuse of toes and excessive weight on feet (Being bipedal) led to gradual changes so the foot is less a tool and more of a shock absorber. Why would we have knuckles in our feet where we can't even bend them?
Just somethings I've been thinking about...
1) The way women carry children is obviously genetically designed for quadrapeds. The compression of organs around the hips is something nature tends to avoid. The transition to bipedal was obviously too fast for our genetics to compensate. Thus women still bear offspring similar to quadrapeds, with obvious consequences.
2) We have a tailbone WHY?
3) The presence of the appendix, used to digest fibrous foods like grass and leaves. The lack of consumption of fiber for thousands of years led to the gradual shrinking and diminishment of the appendix. In a few hundred years, it may be gone completely. If we never were like the animals and god just *poof* made us like we are, why would we have an appendix? It would never have been NEEDED.
4) Wisdom Teeth: Originally designed to come in and replace or supplement teeth that have been lost in ye olde days. Now wisdom teeth are an annoyance (Thank god I have none, another point), and an unnecessary one at that.
5) Little toes. Why do we even HAVE toes, for that matter? Monkeys do and they use them all the time. In fact, our skeletal structure of our feet are very VERY similar to a monkey's. Disuse of toes and excessive weight on feet (Being bipedal) led to gradual changes so the foot is less a tool and more of a shock absorber. Why would we have knuckles in our feet where we can't even bend them?
Just somethings I've been thinking about...
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You could go on like that forever... Why do we have legs when we can use wheelchairs to get around.
Wisdom teeth are hardly a vestigial organ, you said it yourself "Originally designed to come in and replace or supplement teeth that have been lost in ye olde days" when people didnt have the same diet as today, so thier teeth got used a lot more
the appendix does have a use. It is used for getitng infected and removed
Why do we have a tailbone? because out parents have tailbones, and we inherit them.
So pregnant women should go around on their hands and knees?
These are just some of the things i've been pondering about possible rebuttal of evolution to evolutionists.
Missing links? Where are they. You say punctuated equilibrium, i say that doesnt remove the need for them.
Endagered species? Why are we fighting to save them? they cant adapt fast enough, let them die off.
New species forming. How does this happen? the definition of a species is that two members can mate and produce fertile offspring. If the offspring is not fertile, they are not of the same species. Let me illustrate my point with a example. Lets say a fish egg gets zapped by radiation and turns into an elephant. This elephant survies to be born amd struggles onto dry land. Since there are no other elephants, heck, there arent even any other animals on land, How is that elephant going to pass its genes on? It cannot mate because it is of a different species to all of the other animals on the earth, so it dies out. OK, the example is extreme, but as soon as a new species of born, through a mutation, it cannot mate and produce fertile offspring because there are no other like it. For the genes to pass on, you need a male and a femal of the same species, so, the already incredible unlikely (ie a million to one) chances that a mutation produces a succesful ner species, become virtually impossible (ie a million million million to one(on a good day)) that two mutations will produce a male and a female of the same species in the same area of the earth so they can get together and produce babies within thier life time. They still have to fancy each other though. They, thier children will have to breed with each other, raising the chances of bad mutation significantly.
Tell me one <i>fact</i> you <i>know</i> about evolution.
I won't argue for young-earth creationism (the word used for day in Genesis can also be translated as age.), but intelligent design has some merit, I think, when looking at a few holes in evolutionary theory.
Actually used in weight dispersion, which is different but similar. You can do without toes however to a degree, but I wouldn't say it would be overly nice to be without them (running in particular).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You could go on like that forever... Why do we have legs when we can use wheelchairs to get around.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that is a dumb comparison, because wheelchairs are not a biologically designed system. You need legs for motility because you aren't born with wheelchairs, thus defeating your argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wisdom teeth are hardly a vestigial organ, you said it yourself "Originally designed to come in and replace or supplement teeth that have been lost in ye olde days" when people didnt have the same diet as today, so thier teeth got used a lot more<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is absolute bollocks. Wisdom teeth are the heavy 'crunching' molars of the dental plan. Their general point is to crush the absolute hardest nuts and or berries you may run into. Generally this function however has been lost due to the fact we no longer eat such nuts anymore (maybe in some places). The softening of food via cooking has changed human dentition quite a bit (and probably will continue to do so, especially bacteriologically).
These teeth are generally just there to be a pain as they deterioate and have to be removed.
In addition to this, we lose our teeth much faster than would normally occur because we've whacked the biological systems in our mouths. Through things like increased sugar in the diet, we've encouraged the growth of organisms like <i>Steptococcus mutans</i> that are capable of degrading teeth. When given a nice source of sucrose they form the plaque on your teeth that causes them to be lost.
If you look at animals in the wild, the most common cause of death is in fact a loss of teeth, however this is over quite a few years. Molars are not to 'replace' teeth as you seem to have this weird idea they do. They are there to complement the existing teeth particularly as the diet changes. However, if you lack say, your premolars, molars, canines and incisors you are REALLY in deep ****. These have a very definitive role in eating properly, wisdom teeth however do now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the appendix does have a use. It is used for getitng infected and removed<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boggle no, this has been covered before, and you're wrong. The appendix has no use, I'm an immunologist, and I *know* this to be true. The most important part of the immune system in the gastroentestinal tract are preyers patches and M (microfold cells). Again, I will ram this home, THE APPENDIX HAS NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM THAT IS IMPORTANT, AT ALL, SO THIS ARGUMENT IS DEAD.
FACT.
And if you post a link to a certain gibbering site, you'll merely prove my point that you don't have any idea of what you're talking about (from an immunological standpoint).
I'm nearly *this* close to making a topic that completely talks about the immune system of the gastroentestinal tract and how we fight off infection (chemokines and all), so I have a source of copy and paste material. In addition to this, it is so easy to point out this organ with a so called 'useful' function in the immune system can be chopped out with utterly NO immunological problems whatsoever. At all.
Incidently, I'd like to address the original poster actually (rather than boggle for a change of pace) just for full closure on the appendix.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) The presence of the appendix, used to digest fibrous foods like grass and leaves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it doesn't have a clear function in us anymore, but most animals that eat grass and leaves usually have bacteria that do it for them (rather than any organ). We're not able too due to the fact we don't have those bacteria and neither do we secrete the right enzymes. The appendix is actually part of a larger organ called the cecum, which is in fact responsible for the enzymes to break down plant matter and the like. It is also greatly reduced in mammals (IE us) compared to herbivores.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do we have a tailbone? because out parents have tailbones, and we inherit them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brilliant answer, now answer his actual question on what the *use* of a tailbone is. I can't think of a single thing it would actually do, unless it supported a tail at some point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So pregnant women should go around on their hands and knees?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have missed his point, the organs are designed for a QUADRAPED and not a BIPED. Have a look at your dog and have a think about the physical differences between it and you. The obvious odd questions as to how we're supposedly "designed" immediately should spring to mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These are just some of the things i've been pondering about possible rebuttal of evolution to evolutionists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you haven't quite got the basis in biology to really make any effective arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Missing links? Where are they. You say punctuated equilibrium, i say that doesnt remove the need for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then you haven't much of an idea of what you are talking about. With transitional fossils it is clear that what is implied is the gradualistic stages for transitionary forms, punctuated equilibrium DOES explain why we do not see millions of gradual transitional fossils over a long period of time.
We DO have transitionary forms however but grouped up over short (thousand year) time spans. Which is something that still sparks a lot of debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Endagered species? Why are we fighting to save them? they cant adapt fast enough, let them die off.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It might have occured to you that the collapse of various ecosystems would be disasterous even from our perspective. Ecosystems like the Amazon Rain forest do a bit more than produce useless animals and plants that should be bulldozed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->New species forming. How does this happen? the definition of a species is that two members can mate and produce fertile offspring. If the offspring is not fertile, they are not of the same species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you miss the entire point of the biological species concept! That is but ONE mechanism for creating a new species.
You can in fact have two different species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, BUT are seperated by some sort of division or similar. A species of archies frog in New Zealand is a good example, there are in fact two different species of this frog, yet they CAN interbreed. However as they are seperated by a large amount of water, they are classified as different species.
Species can not interbreed for the following reasons:
Prezygotic:
Habitat isolation (Above)
Behaviour (Active at certain times of the day, produces and releases eggs at different times in the case of corals)
Temporal isolation (Migratory birds often, mate in different regions).
Mechanical isolation (Insects, genitals don't fit together).
Gametic isolation (Gametes can't fuse)
Postzygotic
Fertility problems (You've mentioned this)
Viability (Aborting fetus before full maturity)
Breakdown (The first generation of hybrids are viable, but their offspring are themselves sterile).
So it isn't nearly as simply as you have proclaimed because any of the above can contribute to making a new species, it isn't half as black and white.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me one <i>fact</i> you <i>know</i> about evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That the appendix has no use.
I can also say the fact we evolved from less complex animals into smaller ones. I just point to the large body of evidence behind me.
Incidently, we already have a general topic on this below, it may be better to use that one. It would also mean I wouldn't have to repeat myself so damn often about basic concepts like the appendix. After about 3-4 threads, I'm getting tired of correcting that daft appendix argument.
O_o Maybe they had a bit of somatic incest and created the lesser known child known as a preyers patch <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
At least the spleen got off still being useful <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Of course, you may know that some people have it removed (due to the fact it has a massive blood supply, one puncture=you're basically dead), but then the moment you get an infection of the blood stream=Hello septicemia, next step, DEATH!
Incidently, now I think of it, it's technically the cecums partner, so probably it is in fact cheating on it with the spleen then O_o? You could make a soap opera on the organs in the body with such backstabbing and adultery!
Well then you haven't much of an idea of what you are talking about. With transitional fossils it is clear that what is implied is the gradualistic stages for transitionary forms, punctuated equilibrium DOES explain why we do not see millions of gradual transitional fossils over a long period of time.
We DO have transitionary forms however but grouped up over short (thousand year) time spans. Which is something that still sparks a lot of debate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Puctuated Equilibrium does not remove the need for transitional fossils, it simply explain why they might not be found. It must be the only scientific theory that explains why evidence for it cannot be found. It is still, however, only a theory that some random guy thought up in the 1970's
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me one <i>fact</i> you <i>know</i> about evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That the appendix has no use.
I can also say the fact we evolved from less complex animals into smaller ones. I just point to the large body of evidence behind me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The appendix having no use is not a fact about evolution, its a fact about human biology.
Evidence only supports, it doesnt prove. What about the fact that, when everything else is descending into chaos, what makes life get better? Balls dont roll uphill unless they are being pushed.
Travel back 20 million years and you wont notice much difference between the continents except that South America and africa might be fractionally closer and not joined to North America, and Antarctica may be a bit more north of it's current position.
Compared to the animals however...
There are a lot of megafauna that simply dont exist today anymore. The environment changed, they went extinct and were replaced by animals better suited to the environment.
Fractional genetic changes lead eventually to a better organism.
The problem most people have with evolution is that they think in terms of machines. They think Species A is like a dishwasher, and Species B is like a washing machine. All steps in between are disastrous, and this leads to a percieved failure of evolution. Naturally, evolution does not work like this.
Lets take it to bacteria. They are the fastest evolving things on the planet and thus will suffice as an example.
Species A of Yeast is good at processing a certain mineral in a certain section of a pond. On the other end however, there is a deficiency of this mineral, but there is a different mineral that Species A cant make use of. A random mutation occurs due to errors in the genetic copying process, and suddenly, a mutant version of Species A comes about called Species A - Alpha. Over time, this gene is strengthened and integrated further until Species A - Alpha becomes Species B. Now, in the middle of this pond, there is an abundance of both minerals. As a result, species A and B of yeast exist in equal quantities there. Bacteria have been known to "Swap" DNA with each other (not sure what it's called), and thus this happens. What results is a species that can process Both kinds of mineral in the duality area.
The yeast has evolved to fill the niches in it's environment. The time scale could have been over days or months but it still occured.
Now, applying this to humans...
There was an open niche in the ice ages. Controlling the number of megafauna roaming about so that not all vegetable matter would be consumed. Humans come along, slaughter the wooly mammoths, eat the roots of some prehistoric plant and are in turn consumed by saber toothed tigers and other such carnivores roaming about. The ice ages were a dangerous time, as well as an energy poor one. Those times favoured larger, harier, more intelligent animals. Humans were not large. Though hairy, it was insufficient. What humans had was a rudimentary form of intelligence, and the opposable thumb(great for grasping branches and swinging from tree to tree, then more useful in wielding rocks to smash nuts and usage as tools). Using this powerful device, they devised of the spear. They used spears to slaughter mammoths and such at a large distance (larger then melee range anyway). They ate the meat using an invention called fire. They used the skin to supplement their hair. Because skinning was such a useful and versatile method of keeping out the cold, the human body responded by ceasing production of a useless asset (such as the appendix, which is still being evolved out). What remains of that fur is on top of your head, on your legs and beneath your armpits, where the most heat is still lost from the body.
Because large brains and dextrous hands meant survival in such tough times, those with smaller brains and stubbier hands were selected out of the gene pool.
But, if you want to have a more obvious example at your disposal, here it is.
Lets say we colonise the moon. What selective pressures are there?
1. Lower gravity
2. Harsher environment
3. Radiation exposure
The lower gravity means taller, frailer beings and weaker bones. Thus, those that can retain calcium better will be selected and over an extraordinarily long period of time, the Lunarians may have almost complete calcium retention.
The harsher environment introduces the selection pressure of being able to do with less. Thus, the lunarians may be able to stay alive longer with less food at their disposal. The lower gravity also lends to this as there is less physical exertion and thus less need for energy.
On the flipside, this may encourage the production of fat cells. Since knocks and bumps wouldnt be uncommon, a thicker layer of subcutaneous fat may develop to cushion bumps and knocks better.
Radiation exposure is a simple one. Those whose genes can withstand radiation storms from the sun are selected for survival. Those that do not either die or their children become mutated beyond recognition.
How do new species of man come into effect?
Lets say Moonbase A and moonbase B never interact. They run a joint base called Moonbase C. Depending partly upon chance and mutation, and mostly on good old selective pressures, Moonbase A develops the Fattier humans that can take the knocks and bumps in their stride, while Moonbase B develops the calcium retentive humans that have nice tough bones to deal with the knocks and bumps. Meanwhile, Moonbase C has produced BOTH since people from moonbases A and B havent drifted so far apart as to become completely seperate species, they introduce a new subspecies. Over broad lengths of time, these humans will differentiate wildly.
In say, 5 Million AD, Moonbase A inhabitants may be nothing but butter-balls with soft cartilagenous bones, yet still retaining the delicate manipulative hands. Moonbase B is host to an ever increasing amount of people with larger stronger bones. Some bones may be so rigid that an iron bar wouldnt be able to snap the bones without serious force.
However, it is Moonbase C that flourishes since it contains the best mix. Strong bones coupled with thick padding. Though not to the same extremeties as Moonbase A and B, they are the superior species and thus will rule the moon because they are the hardiest.
If I've got anything wrong I dont doubt that someone will correct me in the matter but for the most part evolution takes place at a GLACIAL pace. Nobody has a concept of 100,000 years let alone 100 Million years. Evolution is unprovable in the term that it takes place so slowly, yet, evolution proceeds faster with simpler life forms.
Just look at HIV. It's a real female dog to cure because it mutates so quickly and furiously that drugs wipe out the susceptible ones and leave the hardy mutants behind. So, new drugs have to be created. In that time a thousand mutations occur. Result? 99% of the HIV species present are wiped out, but it's that 1% that goes on to continue the cycle that makes it so deadly.
Of course, there is the humble flu virus as well. You can catch the damn thing up to a hundred times, and each time you get sick because each time it's a new species of flu that your body is unfamiliar with. Occasionally, a super flu will come along that your body just completely misses and you die from the flu. Supposing that this superflue wiped out 90% of the population, then the remaining 10% have the natural resistance to continue living. Immunity (and I could be wrong here) could occur in one of two ways. 5% have a super white cell that kills any flu virus on the spot. The other 5% have a unique white cell that stops the flu from sensing other flu virii. The result? The flu remains dormant until the body manufactures an antibody. In one sense you know have two species of man based on immunology. If a great distance seperated the two groups, then other selective pressures may come into play, I dont know what they would be but meh, I've tired of typing.
Hope I've got everything right...
Actually it doesn't, perhaps you should re-read what I have already wrote. The reason why we don't know what every single living thing that ever lived was is in fact fairly obvious. Ever looked at an insect. Tell me, where are the bones in an insect to fossilise?
I think you need to have a bit more of an overall understanding of why things fossilise. Punctuated equilibrium is NOT to explain why we don't see transitionary fossils, it is to explain WHY we see them as we do.
Again, understand what the theory says.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The appendix having no use is not a fact about evolution, its a fact about human biology.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it amply demonstrates the idea that as animals evolve certain structures fall into disuse and are no longer essential to survival.
You need a stronger argument than 'just because'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evidence only supports, it doesnt prove.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the point about gravity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What about the fact that, when everything else is descending into chaos,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pardon? Are you alive right now? Do you have proteins in your body? Are you dead by chance?
If this is the case then you are in fact completely wrong (and where many go horrifically wrong about the 2nd law of Entropy). Biological systems do actually conform to entropic principles, because right now your bodies chemical reactions are in fact favouring the formation of your proteins RIGHT NOW, FACT, if you want to dispute that, I DEMAND you tell me how you are posting while *dead*.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->what makes life get better? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do your proteins fold in your body rather than splatter into their base composite amino acids, or just form a random loose chain?
Answer that, and you have your (now in shades of grey) answer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Balls dont roll uphill unless they are being pushed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is called gravity.
However, by your logic, gravity is only a theory supported by evidence. Perhaps balls can roll uphill, gravity is only a theory with evidence behind it.
According to you that does not prove that gravity exists. Funny that.
Chronos:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Immunity (and I could be wrong here) could occur in one of two ways. 5% have a super white cell that kills any flu virus on the spot. The other 5% have a unique white cell that stops the flu from sensing other flu virii. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The first could be possible (some form of super antigen presenting cell that massively upregulates cytotoxic effects is possible), but the second is probably unlikely. Viruses really don't interact that much (or if they do at a very basic level). The more likely reason (in both cases) is that 10% of the population are capable of producing an MHC molecule capable of displaying the right viral peptide to turn up the immune system enough to wipe out (and protect) the individual.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> well said, I do admit that moon base example is rather imaginative, but it seems fairly plausible.
Dinosaurs. Humans and dinosaurs(at least most of them) didn't live in the same period of time(dinosaur skeletons way older than any found human skeleton, right?). That's how it works according to evolution. How ever, if we look at creationists point of view, Adam had T-Rex and a bunch of Velociraptors with him in the garden of Eden.
o_O
Edit: I just removed the last part of my post because it was just begging for massive amounts of flames <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
If evolution happens over millions and millions of years, how can we be sure it is happening? ~Can we observe it? didnt think so, yet most people say they will only believe something when they see it.
I'd like to tell you a little story, knowing you, you will probably say "WTH has that got to do with evolution??" In fact, i doubt you will even read all of it, but here goes.
Isaac Newton (very clever bloke) had a friend round to tea, who was an athiest. His friend saw a complicated model of the solar system on isaac's desk and said "who made that" Isaac said "no-one"
part 2 coming later
It's true though, nobody made it. it formed randomly over billions and trillions (UK billions and trillions, because they are longer) of years
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Over time, this gene is strengthened and integrated further until Species A - Alpha becomes Species B.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yay, a wonderful grey area. I dont suppose there is a step by step generation by generation account of all the mutations that took place to chnage species A into species B is there? and when <i>exactly</i> did species B appear?
When the criterias for that specie was reached, let's not forget we're still evolving, everything still is.
Note: The songs are down right now.
Chimps are self-aware and apes get depressed, teach a chimp to speak English and you got a hairy human, you could even teach it to pray to make you feel better. Humans aren't the only creatures with emotions even though you claim were the only ones with souls.
A conscience is a social construct, what you feel guilty is based upon society, more imporatantly, your family's rules. What you are taught is wrong is what you believe is wrong, and for most people it's what they believe most of their lives.
erm yah no more threadjacking, back to worldwide floods and giant boats.
A conscience is a social construct, what you feel guilty is based upon society, more imporatantly, your family's rules. What you are taught is wrong is what you believe is wrong, and for most people it's what they believe most of their lives.
erm yah no more threadjacking, back to worldwide floods and giant boats. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never mentioned emotions or souls, just conscience.
Ok, how did society evolve?
This thread never was about floods and gaint boats
<b>edit:</b> spelling ^^;
i'll be waiting
until then, im still gonna believe in a creator, kthxbai
Me likes dinos and I think dinos might have liked people only if they had been living in the same era <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: Okay okay. Science says that dinos were born waaaay before humans. Bible says people were the first ones created. Now hows that possible? Either:
a) Humans were created first and Adam and Eve played flintstones with dinos. Not likely(there are no human skeletons older than dinos and bible doesn't mention dinos). Humans last but dinos become extinct. And there was humans billions(or at least hundreds of millions of years ago <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
b) Bible is Zort <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
c) Your explanation.
no, humans were the last to be created. We are also told that one day for God is like 1000 years, so the dinosaurs may have died out before man was created (but then, there was no death in the world before the fall, so that wouldnt have happened), or the climate chage after the flood was too great for them and they died then
no, humans were the last to be created. We are also told that one day for God is like 1000 years, so the dinosaurs may have died out before man was created (but then, there was no death in the world before the fall, so that wouldnt have happened), or the climate chage after the flood was too great for them and they died then <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My knowledge of Bible is a bit shaky so you are probably right about humans being created last. However, even if 1 day lasted 1000 years(I don't know where the hell you got this but I'm trying to be sensible), according to science dinosaurs lasted longer than 7000 years...IIRC of course.
Edit: Not to mention Bible never says anything about dinos. About birds, wild animals, small animals etc. yes but never about dinosaurs. I wonder why that is...maybe because those who wrote Bible didn't know about dinos?! Yes, but that's odd concidering God basically wrote Bible through those people.
I havent read anything in the bible that says one day for god is the same as 1000 years, hell, even the bible might not be fully correct about all matters but..
I think we answered your "dino" question <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I have a Bible in front of me right now. I read that God gave all these animals for man to control, and I read nothing that part of these animals had died before man was created. It seems like a really short time here. Also "came evening and came morning", translating to english. God had created moon, stars and sun. Do we have a different kind of idea about morning and night than God? I'm pretty sure I can find God or Jesus somewhere in the Bible talking about a day as in 24h instead of 1000 years <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also if God rested one day, aka 1000 years after creating man, Adam was actually 1000 years old. We are finding new interesting information on Bible here. Reading Bible is actually fun <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Started in... what was it? Aramaic? Then it was transferred to Latin which it was read in until the late middle ages where it was finally translated into the common tongues of our countries so the common folk could actually understand it =D
no, humans were the last to be created. We are also told that one day for God is like 1000 years, so the dinosaurs may have died out before man was created (but then, there was no death in the world before the fall, so that wouldnt have happened), or the climate chage after the flood was too great for them and they died then <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My knowledge of Bible is a bit shaky so you are probably right about humans being created last. However, even if 1 day lasted 1000 years(I don't know where the hell you got this but I'm trying to be sensible), according to science dinosaurs lasted longer than 7000 years...IIRC of course.
Edit: Not to mention Bible never says anything about dinos. About birds, wild animals, small animals etc. yes but never about dinosaurs. I wonder why that is...maybe because those who wrote Bible didn't know about dinos?! Yes, but that's odd concidering God basically wrote Bible through those people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dread, if the dinosaurs never died out, do you think we would have a separate name for them? Or would we just consider them one of the animals? It does actually specifically mention what I believe is a dinosaur, but it called it a "behemoth" - a creature with a tail like a cedar log etc...
Its in Job somewhere, but the point is, the Bible doesnt just forget to add dinosaurs - they were just nothing flash, yet another animal really.
Geminosity - it is meant to be taken literally. That is the conclusion of about 80% of biblical scholars, those supporting evolution or not. Those who say "we cant really be confident of what the Bible is saying because of translation" are kidding themselves. There is a mass of Biblical study that is going on and has gone of for hundreds of years. The amount of literature is stunning. If you really want to know specifically what the author meant in his own language - you can bet someone has researched it thoroughly and down to the ground.
If you wish to assume that dinosaurs and men never lived side by side, by all means carry on. Then bear in mind that fish supposedly millions of years old, eg the coelanth, are still living today.
The american indians have stories and drawings of a bird that looks suspiciously like a petranadon, and it could be possible that dragons are actually inspired by dinosaurs. I dont buy into the "humans and dinosaurs" never lived together - and I wouldnt be surprised if it was found that they did. Its one of lifes little irrelevancies. If it is proven that they did, the evolutionists wont give a damn - theory adaption time, thats all. Same for the creationists - just a very minor point won
Sexual selection..
Weapons
Bite that Evicerator <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just like no one knew there were creatures living near hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. Then we went down into the ocean and started looking around. Now scientists are coming up with new species on practically every deep-sea dive they make.
Sexual selection..
Weapons
Bite that Evicerator <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Ooh baby, your toenails are so FINE! Let's have sex right now, oh YEAH!"
"Tragic news from the West side today. A boy was toe-clawed to death by his older brother. Apparently the two got into a heated argument. Instead of using his fists, the older boy decided to sit down on his **** and use his toenails as a weapon. Witnesses described a horrific flailing of legs. The younger boy was clawed into unconsciousness. He was reported dead at 7:38pm by doctors at the hospital."