Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 5 votes

Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory


  • Please log in to reply
236 replies to this topic

#76    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:13 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 24 September 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

Thats because its a man-made classification. Categorised species, with their nice clean borders and boundaries don't really exist in nature.


Absolutely!  It is kind of like looking at the bones of an entire family where everyone died as an adult and trying to group them into generations.  Not to mention, this is just another 'god of gaps' argument.  I really hate those kind of arguments because it forces us to prove that god doesn't exist there as we close the gaps in knowledge and helps to pit science against religion when that is never the intention.


#77    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:00 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 24 September 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Mmmm.. that's less clear. Again, because of the naming issue. I agree that H.h (I got tired of typing it out) is different from modern humans and is different from H erectus and H. neanderthalensis.  Though it is possible that it is only the precursor to H. neanderthalensis and not FMH.
I c

So you basicly said that we evolve from other spicies? Under spicies Im thinking on term as we usualy use today. Lets forget pardox about naming spicies for a while.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#78    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:36 PM

View Postthe L, on 24 September 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

So you basicly said that we evolve from other spicies? Under spicies Im thinking on term as we usualy use today. Lets forget pardox about naming spicies for a while.
As I recall, the term used in the creation story, at least in KJV, is "kind."  The Bible is even more vague than is biology.

But that being the case, the issue of whether H. neanderthalensis is a separate species is moot:  we don't know whether it was a different "kind" or not.  As Europenas carry about 4% Neanderthal genes, by the strict definition of "species," it was not a separate species.  Thus, we modern humans can be descended from the Neanderthals without producing a biblical inconsistency.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#79    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:00 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 24 September 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

As I recall, the term used in the creation story, at least in KJV, is "kind."  The Bible is even more vague than is biology.

But that being the case, the issue of whether H. neanderthalensis is a separate species is moot:  we don't know whether it was a different "kind" or not.  As Europenas carry about 4% Neanderthal genes, by the strict definition of "species," it was not a separate species.  Thus, we modern humans can be descended from the Neanderthals without producing a biblical inconsistency.
Doug

You are the first one that bring bible and creationism in thread.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#80    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:19 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 24 September 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Thus, we modern humans can be descended from the Neanderthals.


You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#81    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:39 PM

View Postthe L, on 24 September 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

You are the first one that bring bible and creationism in thread.
My appologies.  Perhaps I misunderstood the subject.

View Postthe L, on 24 September 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.
I wasn't talking about heidelbergensis or rhodesiensis.  And you're right; I am a dendrochronologist, not a taxonomist.  In this subject, I am as much an amateur as anybody else on here.  The fact that few of us knows what we're talking about, doesn't keep us from talking, though.

But as I understand the situation, heidelbergensis may be an ancestor of the Neanderthals, thus an ancestor of ours.  Rhodesiensis, however, was on a different branch of the family tree and so is not our ancestor, sort of like a cousin.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 24 September 2012 - 06:46 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#82    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:46 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 24 September 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

My appologies.  Perhaps I misunderstood the subject.

I wasn't talking about heidelbergensis or rhodesiensis.  And you're right; I am a dendrochronologist, not a taxonomist.  In this subject, I am as much an amateur as anybody else on here.  The fact that few of us knows what we're talking about, doesn't keep us from talking, though.
Doug

No need to apologize, realy. And please continue with your speculation here. You are welcome. Thats what we do too as you pointed out.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#83    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:06 PM

View Postthe L, on 24 September 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.

He's not speaking for science. Modern humans are not descended from Neanderthals.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#84    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:08 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 24 September 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

My appologies.  Perhaps I misunderstood the subject.

I wasn't talking about heidelbergensis or rhodesiensis.  And you're right; I am a dendrochronologist, not a taxonomist.  In this subject, I am as much an amateur as anybody else on here.  The fact that few of us knows what we're talking about, doesn't keep us from talking, though.

But as I understand the situation, heidelbergensis may be an ancestor of the Neanderthals, thus an ancestor of ours.  Rhodesiensis, however, was on a different branch of the family tree and so is not our ancestor, sort of like a cousin.
Doug

Very good, yes. H. heidelbergensis is the most probably ancestor of H. neandethalensis and H. sapiens; H. rhodesiensis is a side-branch of the genus.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#85    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,457 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:06 PM

View Postthe L, on 24 September 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

So you basicly said that we evolve from other spicies? Under spicies Im thinking on term as we usualy use today. Lets forget pardox about naming spicies for a while.

Well, a species doesn't evolve into a completely new species. It evolves into a better form than what it was before.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#86    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,332 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:45 AM

God bless America! (sarcasm)

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#87    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:59 AM

View Postthe L, on 24 September 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

You said Neanderthal, Imaginary Homo heidelbergensis, others say Homo rhodesiensis....So seems to me that science dont have clue.

Relationships don't fossilize. Also, Homo rhodesiensis, I believe, is synonymous with Homo heidelbergensis.

Posted Image

#88    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 25 September 2012 - 12:43 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 24 September 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Well, a species doesn't evolve into a completely new species. It evolves into a better form than what it was before.
The problem here is that the "species" category was created to distinguish between existing species.  Hypothetically, if two populations cannot cross to produce fertile offspring, they are two separate species.  But there are exceptions, especially in the plant world.

When we try to decide if one species was ancestral to another, the line gets blurred.  In order for one species to evolve into another one, it must be able to reproduce clear along the line with each generation capable of reproducing with those on either side of it, but with the end result not able to cross with the original ancestor.

In North America we have an interesting situation with the leopard frog.  Its range forms a giant horseshoe with the ends extending south along the Rockies and Appalachians and the center up in Canada.  Frogs in any two adjacent puddles can cross with each other, but those from the southern Appalachians cannot cross with those from the Rockies.  This situation begs the definition of "species."

So, yes.  A species evolves into a new form of itself, but if that form is unable to cross with its ancestor, then it is a new species, by the definition.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#89    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 25 September 2012 - 12:45 PM

View PostTaylor Reints, on 25 September 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Relationships don't fossilize. Also, Homo rhodesiensis, I believe, is synonymous with Homo heidelbergensis.
There are two theories.  One that rhodesiensis and heidelbergensis are on two different lines, descended from a common ancestor, but otherwise not related.  The other is that rhodesiensis was the descendent of heidelbergensis, a side branch of the family tree that went extinct.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#90    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2012 - 02:14 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 25 September 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

A species evolves into a new form of itself, but if that form is unable to cross with its ancestor, then it is a new species, by the definition.

That sounds logic.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users