Interesting story about how mapping the human genome proves Darwin correct. <A href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/534127.asp">Darwin Vindicated!</A> ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Discovery channel had a documentary on last night about our evolution. Interesting how the brain evolved from chimpanzee size to human size. Thanks for the link Timing ------------------ When we tire of well-worn ways, we seek for new. This restless craving in the souls of men spurs them to climb, and to seek the mountain view. -- Ella Wheeler Wilcox
You guys may have came from chimps (some of ya act like it), but not me. There are two major puzzles about evolution (from the 'singled celled omeba) 1) Why are there not any cross breeds? How is that there are not any 'half men, half monkeys'? If evolution were true, our classes would not break out so evenly. There should be things like plants growing out of animals ... bizare things like that. We would have found fossils of such things. 2) Why is it we can only document man back a couple thousand years? Sure you find fossils that looks like half man and half monkey, but can you really tell unless you were there to see it? Who says its not a genetic mistake? ------------------ Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!
I thought the theory was that we had a common ancestor, not that we evolved from them. (The "Missing Link" mentioned in the next post being that common ancestor that no one can find). Personally, I didn't think evolution itself was in much dispute anymore, as we've seen many examples of it in nature and in the fossil record in relation to other creatures (and even humans who have most certainly changed over the course of history). Of course, I don't think evolution necessarily trumps the idea of creationism in the bible. For example, the heavens and EArth being created in Seven Days doesn't necessarily mean that it took a week in our time, etc. The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive (and it is my understanding that Darwin didn't think of evolution and creationism to necessarily be mutually exclusive, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong or heard that from someone who is a moron). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Turbo: they pretty much HAVE found the missing link. We've found skeletons of other hominids that demonstrate the progression from ape to man. These skelotons are NOT homo sapien, nor are they ape. I don't really see how people can interpret the data any other way. Interesting stuff the human genome project has proven: 1. fewer biological differences between men and women than previously expected, 2. 98% of DNA is NOT race correllated, and 3. nurture may just be more important than nature. Sort of heartening for the most part, don't you think? ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
I believe in Creationism , At least there are proven evidence to back that up , Darwinism is just an excuse for Atheists to prove there is no God . ------------------
The theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection cannot be supported by science, especially the case of all life on earth evolving from some primordial ooze. There were some statisticians a while back that calculated that the amount of time required for sustainable life to evolve from some random assortment of element is something like 400 billion years. This is just for life to first apear. The time it would take for a highly evolved species such as man would be onn the order of trillions of years. Thus it is highly unlikely that in the four billion years that the earth has existed, man has evolved from the goop that was sitting here. Additionally, any thoughts that random life could have been made somewhere else and then brought here would also be unfounded as the entire universe is only like 10 billion years old. So, any statement like, "Theory of Evolution finally proven" is erroneous. Until there is some recording of the history of the world and the evolution of species (like in Mission to Mars) the theory of evolution will remain just that, a THEORY. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
All I can say is that one signature someone had, "If People Evolved from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" ------------------ Charles Barkley on TBS on the "fat track" poll: "What? 47% said I'd gain more.....why those.....they better be glad this is a family show."
They already found it. <center></center> ------------------ My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel boy.
What evidence are you referring to exactly? Please don't tell me it's the Bible. ------------------ Hakeem, Hasaw, Haconquered.
Moestavern -- Timiing provided the proof. Evolution is observable fact. Creationism is, for lack a better, sensational B.S. and could not have possible. ------------------ Hey now, Hey now, don't Dream it's over...
Lets face it, people who believe in creationism will not change their beliefs towards evolution. Just like I would never believe in creationism, most highly religious people will not start believing in evolution. Don't bother with the evidence. It means nothing to creationists. (no offense intended) ------------------ "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning how to put food on their family while being put to death."
Lets see believe in the Bible or Believe in a Crazy old dude who denounced his whole theory on his deathbead? please... ------------------
moestavern19, Not to demean your beliefs but what empirical evidence or data can you present that the bible is anything more than a book of half-truths and fairy tales? ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Try a couple of MILLION. Furthermore, how do you explain fossils of hominids that are robust (read very big-boned), or skin coloring, or even the shape of teeth? Take some anthropology classes please. (I'm not good at these quote thingies...) ------------------ Poopy! [This message has been edited by Ali Cat (edited February 23, 2001).]
You guys should really read some advanced, or heck, even intro books concerning human evolution and physical anthropology. Lets see, where to start. First, why are there not any cross breeds. It is due to reproductive isolation. In many cases there are actually cross breeds. Darwin's finches provide the perfect example. There are many different species of finch on the Galapagos islands now and some cross-breeding has occured. But, sexual reproduction generally doesnt allow for crosses such as human and sheep for example. Beyond that, there are physical and social factors at play. Species and populations are often physically isolated from each other and thus reproductively isolated. Further, behavior also evolves. The social interactions necessary to "attract" a mate are very complex. Second, the fossil record is not perfect. Sometimes I lose my wallet in my room seconds after I put it down (and Im sure all of you have similar experiences), yet you want scientists to magically find intact fossils from millions of years ago. Besides, they do have skeletons that are significantly more than a few thousand years old (millions) and much other evidence to support their findings. Third, they have "found" the so-called "missing link." Its taxonomic name is australopithichien, and the have found two varieties, robustus and grassile. They believe the human line of evolution comes from the grassile while the robustus, the bigger variety (it had jaw muscles that went all the way up its head connecting to a spike like ridge on the top of its skull), died out. Next, evolution is not as slow a process as you make out. Take the case of dogs. In a short time, the many many dog species have evolved. Now, true, this is by artificial selection, not natural, but it is somewhat analagous. Today, we have many many dog species that in the past did not exist. In Darwin's time contemporary scientists said the same thing. Of course, then, they used the Christian beleive that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Now we have scientific evidence that the earth is over 4 billion years old yet the argument arises again. The physical similarities between man and ape are overwhelming. Take our shoulders. The only reason we can swing our shoulders (and thus have baseball, for instance) is because we evolved from ape, which swung from trees. Or our wrists. Human wrists are very easy to break. Why? Because when our distant ancestors hung from trees, it was beneficial from them to be able to rotate by their wrists 360 degrees to grab food or spot danger. It is the same reasons apes walk on their knuckles and not flat on their hands. It is just too stressful. There is much other evidence of this nature. Of course, monkeys still have a place in the world. They still have many advantages over us living in trees and sometimes in open grasslands. Ever wonder why monkeys dont roam freely around cities. Because it would be harder to survive here. But in the wild, primates other than homonids still have many advatages, thus their existence today. So lets see, beleive in a theory that gains more and more and more scientific backing every day or believe that there was actually a man who parted the seas and all people came from Adam and Eve. Why not believe the earth is flat too, and at the center of the universe, maybe plato was right. ------------------ [This message has been edited by JayZ750 (edited February 23, 2001).]
Ok, so I went and dug out my Intro to Physical Anth book to make sure I am correct. (and to support JayZ750, who is, btw, taking a Human Evolution class this semester at UPENN) Some of the earliest known hominids are australopithecines (Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus africanus, Australophithecus boisei) but there are some controversial skeletons (Ardipithecus ramidus) that are hominid predecessors and share more traits with apes than later hominids. Furthermore, after the australopithecines come early homo sapians and Homo habilis. I could keep going and explain how the saggital crest, tooth size and shape, and robustness all point to evolution, but I don't want to bore ya'll with all of this SCIENCE. Ali ------------------ Poopy! [This message has been edited by Ali Cat (edited February 23, 2001).] [This message has been edited by Ali Cat (edited February 23, 2001).]
