Reply With Quote
Ok, this how Chump operates.
He'll be back I gurantee it, he'll just wait awhile so my...now!...isn't in play.
Watch.
So why are you here?
You appear to have some hang up with..."I really smart, you're not smart"...ha~~~ Blake what's that bit all about? You seem to really be obsessed with..."I so smart"...dude, ha!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm dead serious Blake you don't strike me as being overly smart, if ya were you wouldn't act like you do.
Last edited by Avante; 08-07-2015 at 03:08 PM.
Ok, this how Chump operates.
He'll be back I gurantee it, he'll just wait awhile so my...now!...isn't in play.
Watch.
Back in the days of Frank Gifford. These were the top running backs for each NFL team.
Giants..Frank Gifford
Redskins...Don Bosseler
Eagles...Timmy Brown
Steelers...John Henry Johnson
Browns...Jim Brown
Cowboys..Don Perkins
Cards..John David Crow
Colts...Lenny Moore
Niners...J.D.Smith
Rams... Bass
Lions...Nick Pietrasonte
Packers...Jim Taylor
Bears...Rick Casares (Willie Galimore)
and he's fat... all we need to find out is that he's a drunk
This is who Frank Gifford was.
We all get it idiot, you think you were a fish, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
i was never a fish. i was born a human being, and i'm still a human being.
So tell me little guy if we traced your ancestry back as far as it could go, where would we end up?
most likely a single celled organism
Right there is what's wrong with evolution.
You said..."most likely"...didin't I mention that? All this..."we are led to believe".."there is a good chance"..."odds are"...'MOST LIKELY".
What's with that?
because we weren't there to see it. the evidence definitely points to that direction, and it's the most logical conclusion given the information we know.
a lot of things we accept as fact are also "most likely" scenarios. like why the dinosaurs died out, or when humans first formed civilizations
So you expect me/others to except evolution as fact despite all the guessing, right?
given what we know, it is by far the most plausible explanation. there isn't a close second
So why do we need an explanation until we have absolute proof?
I'll take a stab...
Things not said by Isaac Newton.
Ha~~~~~
It needs to be...
We don't know for certain about our origins. We are working on it however.
either way. I'm pretty sure that it involves aliens though. It's the simplest explanation that can be reconciled with all the facts we have today.
because if that was your standard, then science and technology would never progress
human evolution biggest hole is the lack of DNA tracing.
you keep repeating this even though DNA and genetics have been some of the strongest evidence for evolution
None of what human evolution says today answers the questions of hereditary variations, nor does it explain the gradual ac ulation of a single cell into a more complex form.
It hasn't been able to explain the sudden appearance of the most basic life divisions in plants and some animals about 600 million years ago. How did these lifeforms gradually evolve?
There is always a missing link from the Old Darwin theory to modernist evolution even after years of trying to recreate darwins theory with less missing links.
The human evolution in Particular has many chains that is missing from one single cell to a full complex body.
Let's say Humans evolved from Fish, we're just going to have to go back and question how a single form gradually evolved to a more complex fish. None of the theories today explain this.
While animal evolution is plausible, the way the general public. scientific coomunity treats is a result of egotistical human pride..From wanting to know who we are and where we came from. The reality is that, we don't.
Human Evolution is probably just as plausible as creation...
its like you have no idea what mutation/variation is
Is your definition of "Progress" having Science continuously shove the Darwin we Evolved from apes bull that is still in the classroom texts books even after the discovery of DNA and what we now know about how complex it is then you have no backbone or mental capability to admit your sometimes wrong.
Lightweight stuff for a lightweight mind.
I see you have yet to actually address any of the evidence supporting evolution with anything other than whining and attempts to change the subject of your own thread.
Carry on, boy.
A request for evidence and understanding. Fair enough.
First point.
"None of what human evolution says today answers the questions of hereditary variations, nor does it explain the gradual ac ulation of a single cell into a more complex form."
Answers:
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/bi...-variation.phpHeredity and Variation Definition
All living organisms reproduce. Reproduction results in the formation of offspring of the same kind. A pea plant produces only pea plants each time it reproduces. A rat produces only rats. Humans produce only humans. However, the resulting offspring need not and most often do not totally resemble the parent. Several characteristic differences may occur between individuals belonging to the same species. The similarities and differences among the members of a species are not coincidental. Both the similarities and differences have been received from their parents. The mechanism of transmission of characters, resemblances as well as differences, from the parental generation to the offspring, is called as heredity. The differences shown by individuals within the same species and in the offspring, are described as variations. The scientific study of heredity, variations and the environmental factors responsible for these, is known as genetics.
Genetics and mutations very adequately explain variations, as well as ac ulations of complexity.
( a bit more on that at the link here: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...tion/mutation/)-----------------------------------------------
"[Evolution] hasn't been able to explain the sudden appearance of the most basic life divisions in plants and some animals about 600 million years ago. How did these lifeforms gradually evolve?"
Mutation and natural selection explain all gradual evolution, including the "sudden appearance".
If you want to know the specifics of both, there are lots of resources available. You can start at the links above.
-----------------------------------------------
"There is always a missing link from the Old Darwin theory to modernist evolution even after years of trying to recreate darwins theory with less missing links."
Not quite a logically coherent thought, but missing links would be expected simply because of the way fossil records work.
I don't need to know the missing letters in this sequence:
1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ..., 12, 13, 14, 15 ....
To be able to reasonably guess the rule that governs the set as "add one to the preceding number" We don't need to know the missing integers to be able to draw pretty reasonable conclusions. The same goes for the "missing link" fossils that many seem to think are required for a working theory.
--------------------------------------------------
"The human evolution in Particular has many chains that is missing from one single cell to a full complex body. "
No, not really. We pretty much have used phylogeny and genetics to fill it in.
More recent developments:--------------------------------------------------
http://humanorigins.si.edu/education...uman-evolution
The gradual refining/adding/changing of traits from ancestors can be roughly understood through the application of both:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
"Let's say Humans evolved from Fish, we're just going to have to go back and question how a single form gradually evolved to a more complex fish. None of the theories today explain this."
Actually, yes there are mountains of evidence.
One can start with fish, then go to fish that can spend limited time out of water, like mudskippers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
Then move on to amphibians, who can spend much longer out of water, then on to other animals, and so on.
It takes a bit of reading to follow the progression, but the evidence is there, if you take the time to read it.
--------------------------------------------
"While animal evolution is plausible, the way the general public. scientific coomunity treats is a result of egotistical human pride..From wanting to know who we are and where we came from. The reality is that, we don't."
"pride" is not really the essence of how science works. Either you have a working theory, supported by as much available evidence or you don't.
An individual theory is not arrogant.Iit just is.
If I had a theory about the number of marbles in a jar, it is not "arrogant" to test that. It is also fully possible for you to re-test my theory and data to see if I am right. That is how we arrive at the best, most useful, model of the universe we can get.
Overall, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported ones we have.
It does take a fair amount of reading to get to a decent understanding of it, though.
I can provide more links if you wish.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-12-2015 at 04:24 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
