The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Yes OK , but what i'm saying is that these remnants of former life may somehow hold on to the bluprints in their gene pool . We may not be able to locate them , but if the circumstances were right , they could possibly reappear more quickly than we now believe possible . No, that's completely impossible. If that were the case, the genome would grow rapidly bigger with every generation - you're suggesting them holding on to every single bit of genetic information that their ancestors held - which contradicts our knowledge of gametes.
The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 What about the theory that evolution is a mechanism created by a superior entity / conciusness (god) Intelligent design? A scam, devised to disrupt evolution so that creationism can be snuck into the classroom - it's proponents admitted this in a leaked email 15 years ago, I don't know why anyone takes it seriously - it is little more than psuedo-science. It has the same footing as homoeopathy.
Zingari Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Evolution did not take place overnight. well not exactly , but the evolution of humans in the total world history has been very very recent and in those terms, it is pretty much "overnight "
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 You don't believe in Speciation?...if not what do you believe? I've never heard much about speciation over the years, so don't know what I believe about it. I've only seen it mentioned on here and on a few websites, but not looked at it. The only thing I believe on this subject is that mankind didn't evolve from apes and all that business. Fish have always been fish. Reptiles have always been reptiles. Mammals have always been mammals, and so on. The changes involved to get from one to another are impossible, and would result in extinction. If speciation is trying to say that a mammal did come from a fish then I think it is a crock. This evolution arguement is a side track anyway. The thing I'm concerned about, and came in the thread for is the religion, sociological and political side of things, but it always ends up going off on this tangent.
The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 I've never heard much about speciation over the years, so don't know what I believe about it. I've only seen it mentioned on here and on a few websites, but not looked at it. The only thing I believe on this subject is that mankind didn't evolve from apes and all that business. Fish have always been fish. Reptiles have always been reptiles. Mammals have always been mammals, and so on. The changes involved to get from one to another are impossible, and would result in extinction. If speciation is trying to say that a mammal did come from a fish then I think it is a crock. This evolution arguement is a side track anyway. The thing I'm concerned about, and came in the thread for is the religion, sociological and political side of things, but it always ends up going off on this tangent. Then you are wrong. Mankind shares a common ancestor with modern apes, we did evolve from ancient apes. However, what you say there then is that people would have been around during the time of the dinosaurs, or did they just spring out of nothing? The changes aren't impossible, speciation is known and has been observed repeatedly.
Zingari Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Then you are wrong. Mankind shares a common ancestor with modern apes, we did evolve from ancient apes. However, what you say there then is that people would have been around during the time of the dinosaurs, or did they just spring out of nothing? The changes aren't impossible, speciation is known and has been observed repeatedly. Rachel Welsh was around at the time of the dinosaurs . I saw her fighting them
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Did you not read any of the links I posted? Apes and men are related, this is irrefutable - common descent has been proved conclusively with endogenous retroviruses, ****ing hell we've even been able to roughly date the point of divergence. Speciation has been observed, repeatedly. We've a ****-ton of proof that man came from a common ancestor with apes. ERV's, Genetic similarities, fossil records... As I have said - pound for pound, evolution is more certain than gravity. If you deny it, you are a fool. As for that image, it's generally replace in favour of phylogenic trees nowadays, since while the basic idea is sound, it's far too simplified to provide any real help understanding things. So evolution is fact now then is it? I don't think so. You can say that it is as much as you want to, but it's not true. I know that man and lots of other creatures all have similar structures to another creature or another. I've said it about 10 times. All things are made from out of the same small batch of elements, so obviously many creatures will have similar structures or ingredients. You showing me something that we've known for a long time is not proof of an ape turning into a man. No I didn't read the five or ten links you posted! I'm working at home at the same time as posting on here. But being as they're on the thread, when I get a couple of hours spare and I'm bored, I'll have a look at a couple. I'm not totally against what you're trying to tell me. What I don't like is the people we mentioned earlier, who spend their time on slandering and stirring up emotions with falsities (about religion, not science), whilst trying to sell their books and tickets to their preaching sessions.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 However, what you say there then is that people would have been around during the time of the dinosaurs, or did they just spring out of nothing? Not sure if I've read this correctly, but yes people were around with owd dino. No doubt. Not sure how old the oldest humanoid bones we've found are, think you said 200,000 years the other day. If we haven't found any humanoids from dino times then that's just because they've mostly been disappeared by heat and other means. The surface of the earth has changed countless times since those days, and most things would have perished, or will be in inaccessible places by now, like deep under the seabed, or far under the current land surface. Anyway, this is all getting a bit silly now, I was hoping to be talking about the muslim haters and trying to put them straight.
The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 So evolution is fact now then is it? I don't think so. You can say that it is as much as you want to, but it's not true. No, I didn't say that - I said common ancestry is irrefutable, which is true. Not sure if I've read this correctly, but yes people were around with owd dino. No doubt. And here you've lost all credibility, mankind never existed at the point of the dinosaurs - we are far less that the 65m years old as a species we'd need to be just to be around for the dinosaurs demise.
danny. Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Not sure if I've read this correctly, but yes people were around with owd dino. No doubt. Not sure how old the oldest humanoid bones we've found are, think you said 200,000 years the other day. If we haven't found any humanoids from dino times then that's just because they've mostly been disappeared by heat and other means. The surface of the earth has changed countless times since those days, and most things would have perished, or will be in inaccessible places by now, like deep under the seabed, or far under the current land surface. This is a wind up right? What next, trying to convince us that the earth is 5000 years old?
The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Humans are apes. In this sort of conversation apes refers to Chimpanzees, Gorillas and co rather than the actual taxonomical group Hominoidea
anotherharboroughfox Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 well not exactly , but the evolution of humans in the total world history has been very very recent and in those terms, it is pretty much "overnight " This bears no relevance to the actual topic at all, but it reminded me of this.
Rincewind Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Didn't a huge metorite destroy the dinosaurs? If that is so mankind would have been a gonner too. Zingari by saying evolution never happened overnight I meant overnight as we know it and that it was over many thousands if not millions of years.
Zingari Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Didn't a huge metorite destroy the dinosaurs? If that is so mankind would have been a gonner too. Wouldn't it have killed all our previous ancestors too ?
The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Wouldn't it have killed all our previous ancestors too ? No, it killed anything particularly sizable - only small animals cowering in caves could have survived it and the after-effects. So the small mammals survived and evolved into the variety of mammals we see today.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 This is a wind up right? What next, trying to convince us that the earth is 5000 years old? Don't be ridiculous! As for how long humans have been around for, I don't think there will be any way to prove that one I'm afraid. However, I'm pretty sure that it's alot longer than some of you science guys seem to assume. To quote the great philosopher Lamby, it's an endless circle of shit. Well, actually, I don't totally agree with that statement. I think it's an endless circle of beauty and shit. The emphasis on 'and'. On a side note, it's flipping good to see zingari back.
danny. Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 In this sort of conversation apes refers to Chimpanzees, Gorillas and co rather than the actual taxonomical group Hominoidea Why? Just changing definitions on a whim now? Where is the logic in that?
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 No, it killed anything particularly sizable - only small animals cowering in caves could have survived it and the after-effects. So the small mammals survived and evolved into the variety of mammals we see today. Small animals hid in caves? Got any footage? Only playing, it's plausible. In some of those great catastrophes though, there's evidence that cave hiders got drowned. There's also things that suggest that many different species ended up getting washed into caves in large numbers and stuck in piles together. Edit : This topic should be lopped at the point it became an evolution debate, and that part put into a new thread. It's not about the Sikh/Muslim thing that happened or anything related anymore. Disappointing. If I was a mod it'd be lopped for sure.
danny. Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Don't be ridiculous! Saying the earth being 5000 years old is about as ridiculous as saying homosapiens have been around for over 66 million years surely?
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 This is a wind up right? What next, trying to convince us that the earth is 5000 years old? Apparently all the ancient fossils have turned into oil (according to some), so I'm not sure why you'd believe that human bones from hundreds of thousands of years ago would still be visible, or evenly remotely detectable to us. Saying the earth being 5000 years old is about as ridiculous as saying homosapiens have been around for over 66 million years surely? Saying the earth is 5000 years old is ridiculous yes, but I haven't said that homo's have been around for 66 million years. I do say that we've been around for much longer than we think though. With bouts of near extinction and re-emergence every so often.
The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Why? Just changing definitions on a whim now? Where is the logic in that? It's more a case of shortening the Humans and other apes down to just human and apes, I'd suspect it's born out of the old belief that humans weren't animals. Small animals hid in caves? Got any footage? Only playing, it's plausible. In some of those great catastrophes though, there's evidence that cave hiders got drowned. There's also things that suggest that many different species ended up getting washed into caves in large numbers and stuck in piles together. The point is that only the small animals able to survive off the greatly reduced food sources available with greater ease, would have survived the aftermath, and shielded from the initial blast would have helped greatly.
Zingari Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 No, it killed anything particularly sizable - only small animals cowering in caves could have survived it and the after-effects. So the small mammals survived and evolved into the variety of mammals we see today. If that is your reasoning , why didn't the little dinosaurs survive and re evolve into big dinosaurs again ? They weren't all big .
The Doctor Posted 28 January 2013 Posted 28 January 2013 Apparently all the ancient fossils have turned into oil (according to some), so I'm not sure why you'd believe that human bones from hundreds of thousands of years ago would still be visible, or evenly remotely detectable to us. No, no-one says that. Oil is the flesh and organs, preserved from decay (as in the bottom of the sea where the bacteria are less prevalent), exerted to massive amounts of pressure and heat over time. Oil isn't bones, no-one claims it to be.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.