Frank Merton Posted July 12, 2013 #76 Share Posted July 12, 2013 What we call a cow and what we call a water buffalo have the same name in vietnamese, so I assume such evolution is allowed in Vietnam but not in the States. (I mention this just to show you how culturally dependent your point is, and therefore how meaningless). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted July 12, 2013 #77 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Amnals did not come from reptiles and humans did not come from apes. Daniel, where do you get all this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 12, 2013 Author #78 Share Posted July 12, 2013 What we call a cow and what we call a water buffalo have the same name in vietnamese, so I assume such evolution is allowed in Vietnam but not in the States. (I mention this just to show you how culturally dependent your point is, and therefore how meaningless). You either miss understood me or you don't know water buffalos and cows are both cows or water buffalo depending on which you think came first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Link of Hyrule Posted July 12, 2013 #79 Share Posted July 12, 2013 And I say it is wrong. Given that plan ts and animals share up to fifty percent of their genes. Amnals did not come from reptiles and humans did not come from apes. Humans do not evolve with the climate. We either change the climate or take what we like with us. For instance the examos have been living near the artic circle long enough to have evolved to the climate. Yet they still need to wear furs to keep warm, or build egloos to sleep in on camping trips. As for your cow becoming a different cow specious. I agree with that. But for macro evolution to be true, a cow would have to be able to give birth to a horse or a reptile to a mammal or bird. That I disagree with. Because no matter how long the evolution process takes place a reptile would have to give birth to a mammal. All reptile cornivores know how to hunt and kill at birth. They have to because their parents don't hunt for them. On the other hand mammal cornivores have to be taught how hunt and kill. No, that is not at all accurate. I've tried pointing out my position, but it appears folly. I wash my hands of this debate and let you believe what you wish, as misguided as it may be. I hadn't intended this to be an "evolution vs creationism" debate. Your OP was much broader than that, but this is what it has boiled down to. Your definition of "Science" is wrong. No person has agreed with the entirety of your definition, and at best only one or two people have conceded that "guesswork" applies, but only insofar as the hypothesis stage (and as said, it's more correct to call it a leap in logic, but for argument's sake I'll call it a guess). The vast majority of science is based not in guesswork but in observation, analysis, and all-round study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 12, 2013 Author #80 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Daniel, where do you get all this from? Daniel, where do you get all this from? Humans are not part of nature. Animals have cornivores hunting them at some stage in their life, including elephants lions huntbabiesd in africa if they get a chance and tigers do so in asia. The most dangers animal to humans are hippos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 12, 2013 Author #81 Share Posted July 12, 2013 No, that is not at all accurate. I've tried pointing out my position, but it appears folly. I wash my hands of this debate and let you believe what you wish, as misguided as it may be. I hadn't intended this to be an "evolution vs creationism" debate. Your OP was much broader than that, but this is what it has boiled down to. Your definition of "Science" is wrong. No person has agreed with the entirety of your definition, and at best only one or two people have conceded that "guesswork" applies, but only insofar as the hypothesis stage (and as said, it's more correct to call it a leap in logic, but for argument's sake I'll call it a guess). The vast majority of science is based not in guesswork but in observation, analysis, and all-round study. Yes, until your experiment fails. And you have to start over.. ok you say we have eveddence of macro evolution. How about alink toi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodie.Lynne Posted July 12, 2013 #82 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Humans are not part of nature. Well, now I've heard everything. Th-th-th-ats all folks! >cue Looney Tunes Theme< Edited July 12, 2013 by JMPD1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted July 13, 2013 #83 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Humans are not part of nature. Ohh I read that too, the same book says - Water isn't wet........ The most dangers animal to humans are hippos. The most dangerous creature on earth is the mosquito... Moving from one of the largest animals in the world we now come to one of the smallest. As small as it is though, it is also the deadliest. It has been estimated that mosquitos transmit diseases to almost 700 million people annually resulting in 2 to 3 million deaths every year. http://list25.com/th...in-the-world/5/ The mosquito has killed more humans than any wars known to man.. They have been killing long before man roamed the earth, and they continue to kill... Edited July 13, 2013 by Beckys_Mom 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Link of Hyrule Posted July 13, 2013 #84 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Yes, until your experiment fails. And you have to start over.. ok you say we have eveddence of macro evolution. How about alink toi. I gave you a link. That's one video highlighting one aspect of evolution that as far as I can tell proves that humans and the Great Apes share a common ancestor. As Ken Miller rightly concludes - the only way to counter this is to simply shrug your shoulders and say "well God made it look as if we evolved, for some reason we can't really guess at". I don't believe God would be the type of being to put enough research out there to suggest we evolved from a common ancestor to the Great Apes, then change the number of our chromosomes, only to then make Chromosome #2 appear fused, thus strengthening the evolutionary position. That makes no sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 13, 2013 Author #85 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Sorry pa I can't see your chart. But an animal cannot lose a pair of chrosomes, plants can. I know what the hypothasis is, that two human chroms. became one. But there isn't really any proof. As I keep saying humans don't evolve they change their sorrundings. Ie they take their climate with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 13, 2013 Author #86 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Further science said chimps and early man were able to mate. If they did, the child would be a mule. Meaning the child would be sterale, unable to produce young. Just because I disagree with your evidence does not mean I don't understand it. It simple means iu disagree with it. I have a very good brain. When I was younger I tryed to learn something new everyday, now it is every week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted July 13, 2013 #87 Share Posted July 13, 2013 As I keep saying humans don't evolve And you are wrong. If they did, the child would be a mule. because of your vast knowledge of genetics? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted July 13, 2013 #88 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Further science said chimps and early man were able to mate. If they did, the child would be a mule. Meaning the child would be sterale, unable to produce young. Just because I disagree with your evidence does not mean I don't understand it. It simple means iu disagree with it. I have a very good brain. When I was younger I tryed to learn something new everyday, now it is every week Just sayin... Not all mules are sterile. Though males are, some females are able to breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 13, 2013 Author #89 Share Posted July 13, 2013 In this case yes. Animals have to have an even number of chromosoines if not you end up with a mule, that cannot reproduce. The reason is donkeys and horses do not have the same number of chromosones. Plants on the other hand can double their genes any time they want to, so you don't end up with mules. I learned this on a biology class on pbs. It was a college course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 13, 2013 Author #90 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Just sayin... Not all mules are sterile. Though males are, some females are able to breed. The samr thing with ligers. Don't know if its th male or female. But generaly speaking they can't reproduce with the other sex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted July 13, 2013 Author #91 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Ninja show me a human that has evolved. Th only difference between us and nieandertols is around six months. That is about how long it would take them operate in our society. That one is all me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted July 14, 2013 #92 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Ninja show me a human that has evolved. Th only difference between us and nieandertols is around six months. That is about how long it would take them operate in our society. That one is all me. Daniel, despite the fact many here have tried to help you and you ignored most of it, these random posts you make that clearly show ignorance of science, I asked you previously - Where do you get this info from? ..You ignored me and continued to post up more ignorance of science. Now, normally when we clearly see people do this, it can be seen as trolling..it means you have no real interest in the topic you post and what others say, you are only here to post up random things that clearly are ignorant of science.despite what others have tried to show and explain to you..( It was you who asked the question in the first place - What is science? ) I am not calling you a troll, but please, if you have any link as to where you seem to get these weird ideas, that calls - Science nothing but guess work, humans not part of nature, we don't come from animals etc etc... I for one would like to see where you gather all of this.?. You are willing to listen to the ignorance of science, but not willing to actually learn something about the subject itself? How does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted July 14, 2013 #93 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Ninja show me a human that has evolved. you. Sep. 1, 2009 — The ability to digest the milk sugar lactose first evolved in dairy farming communities in central Europe, not in more northern groups as was previously thought, finds a new study led by UCL (University College London) scientists published in the journal PLoS Computational Biology. Share This: The genetic change that enabled early Europeans to drink milk without getting sick has been mapped to dairying farmers who lived around 7,500 years ago in a region between the central Balkans and central Europe. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827202513.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 16, 2013 #94 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Because, we weren't there to see it happen. We are putting chemicals together that may or may not have been there or the preportions were off. A Besides I seems it only happened once. All life on earth is related We have a snapshot in the fossil record. If it only happened once, perhaps Panspermia might be the reason, the spark eludes us for now. I doubt it will remain that way forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 16, 2013 #95 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) And I say it is wrong. Given that plan ts and animals share up to fifty percent of their genes. How does that not indicate a common ancestor? Amnals did not come from reptiles and humans did not come from apes. Partly right, many species evolved into many clades, and humans evolved alongside Apes from a common ancestor, you cannot evolve into yourself. Humans do not evolve with the climate. We either change the climate or take what we like with us. For instance the examos have been living near the artic circle long enough to have evolved to the climate. Yet they still need to wear furs to keep warm, or build egloos to sleep in on camping trips. That is "intelligence" for you. We are the only species that has learned to adapt the environment to suit us, as opposed to the other way around. I do not understand what it is that you see as significant here? As for your cow becoming a different cow specious. I agree with that. But for macro evolution to be true, a cow would have to be able to give birth to a horse or a reptile to a mammal or bird. That I disagree with. Because no matter how long the evolution process takes place a reptile would have to give birth to a mammal. No it would not, consider the discus fish which produce a secretion through their skin, which the larvae live off during their first few days. This behaviour has also been observed for Uaru species. However when bred in captivity the larvae will tend to live off their parents secretion for up to 2 weeks. That is akin to breastfeeding. All reptile cornivores know how to hunt and kill at birth. They have to because their parents don't hunt for them. On the other hand mammal cornivores have to be taught how hunt and kill. That is not right either, whilst most reptiles are indeed nidifugous, the aforementioned Discus Fish looks after it's young, as do Alligators and Crocodiles. Edited July 16, 2013 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 16, 2013 #96 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) you. http://www.scienceda...90827202513.htm If I may add to your most excellent information: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution Comparing the genomes of Tibetans and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau. Tibetans and Han Chinese split apart as recently as 3,000 years ago, say the biologists, a group at the Beijing Genomics Institute led by Xin Yi and Jian Wang. The report appears in Friday’s issue of Science. Edited July 16, 2013 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted July 16, 2013 #97 Share Posted July 16, 2013 We have a responsibility to accept as truth the things the wisest and best informed tell us are true. This is an interesting thing, because we know they can err, but we also know they are far less likely to err than we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Link of Hyrule Posted July 16, 2013 #98 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Sorry pa I can't see your chart. But an animal cannot lose a pair of chrosomes, plants can. I know what the hypothasis is, that two human chroms. became one. But there isn't really any proof. As I keep saying humans don't evolve they change their sorrundings. Ie they take their climate with them. It's a YouTube video, not a chart. And as for your comment that there "isn't any real proof", then why are there telomere's in the middle of Chromosome #2? That's proof that at some stage in our past that Chromosome #2 was in fact two separate chromosomes that fused together. And that was hypothesised by science (a guess, if you wish) based on observation of the Great Apes and the evolutionary process.It just so happens that based on their observation and experience, their "guess" turned out to be 100% spot on correct, and strengthens the argument for evolution. The "leap in logic" (what you call a "guess") turned out to be absolutely and 100% right. And you turn around and say "there isn't really any proof", as if repeating it often enough will actually make it true. Edited July 16, 2013 by Paranoid Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted July 16, 2013 #99 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Animals and plants are adapted to the conditions of the habitats in which they live. Animals live everywhere on Earth. Some places on Earth are very hot and some are very cold. Some places on Earth have a lot of water and plants, and other places have very little water and few plants. More than 99 percent of Antarctica is covered with ice but a few plants still grow there, mostly lichens, mosses, and algae. Antarctica is very cold. Guess what? Animals even live in Antarctica! The animals in Antarctica are dependent on the sea for feeding or are migratory and leave the continent when the winter arrives. Animals can live in many different places in the world because they have special adaptations to the area they live in. http://resources.woo.../adaptation.htm Edited July 16, 2013 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted July 16, 2013 #100 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Genetic evolution is far more complicated than the original DNA guys ever began to guess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now