Does anyone realy belive we came from monkeys? I for one think it's a bunch of Bull*hi*.
Printable View
Does anyone realy belive we came from monkeys? I for one think it's a bunch of Bull*hi*.
Of course not. We all came from Skinner, the father of all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jose_boriqua_mi
yes...I do Believe we desended from monkeys...Even I myself, Still am a monkey.
oh...wait a moment...no I'm not....damn
Well, some scientists say that we have more common genes with pigs than monkeys... But even now some people resembles their potencial monkey ancestors. Haven't you seen any film with Chuck Norris lately...?Quote:
Originally Posted by jose_boriqua_mi
If you are refering to it being a widly accepted view, you would be suprissed that most opposition come from scientists.
Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.
Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man
Many evolutionists assume that ancient living things were simple but then were supposedly driven by natural selection to become more and more complex through the ages. Recent studies have failed to find such a drive toward greater complexity. Dr. Dan McShea, a paleobiologist, examined the fossilized backbones of various mammals; another study focused on mollusk fossils. Neither study found any evidence of an evolutionary drive toward greater complexity. Nor did they find that greater complexity brought any survival advantage. According to The New York Times, experts say that these findings �will come as a surprise to many biologists used to thinking in terms of such trends.� Notes the Times: �According to Dr. McShea, the perception of drives toward complexity may be more a reflection of scientists� desires to see some sort of progress in evolution rather than a reflection of any biological reality.�
I do not belive in Evolution.
I definitely do think evolution is a plausible explanation of where and who we are today. Except for the warring and plundering bit ofcourse (or maybe that too.. :O). In short, yes, we did come from Monkeys..
[quote]Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins.[/quotes]
It's got nothing to do with being savage or not.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...impanzees.html
It depends on wht stage of evolution you are looking at....Quote:
It's got nothing to do with being savage or not.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...impanzees.html
I'd say that we humans, as well as monkeys and every little creature/thing, come from a source in common. Life and all "materia" in general are mostly made of the same components. We all are the same (in my opinon).
So, i don't know for sure if we and modern monkeys share a common evolutionary "father", but I do think we share the same source.
Now wich is that source?
Some may call it God, some may call it Life, some may call it just "Materia".
Maybe we'll just find out for sure when (if) we return to that source.
Final fantasy 7?Quote:
Originally Posted by LastPucho
Lol, haven't played it yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
By "Materia" i meant matter. I just couldn't find the word in english (i'm a native spanish speaker.)
Evolution-
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Eh? So you believe that at a certain stage of evolution, that you feel better not to disclose, humans and chimps and apes came from the same species or specie line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Of course it matters what stage of evolution, but evolution is evolution, of course, here comes the whole debate about science vs. religion, which I think you embrace, Xena, but that apart, do you have any other reasons why you don't believe in Evolution?
Roflroflroflroflroflrofl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Personally, I couldn't care less how some mangey vagabond got here 80billion years ago. I also do NOT care about the fact that I probably descended from him or some other equally mangey vagabond. I only care about what has happened within the last 2000 years and what will happen in the next 50. Which means, any talk of the creation is lost on me. Frankly, I think the discussion in general is a waste of time, but some people genuinely want to know about it, so more power to them.
How kind, brit:PQuote:
Originally Posted by brit
How does what happened in the last 2000 years affect you then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
I don't accept evolution, I still understand the thoery, I like to study on things as I travel, its so educational.
I never acknowledge your understanding of the theory, not that I have something to boast off, I am still waiting for reasons though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
I dont believe in religion Or the evolution theory, all i know is that im here but i respect the different religions and their beliefs (xcept the fuckin mormons, someone should whack some sence into them) and the theory behind th big bang and whatever else
Very good madam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the �inferior� ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no �ape-men.� Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced �links� between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?
A theory, commonly called animism, was proposed by the English anthropologist Edward Tylor (1832-1917). He suggested that experiences such as dreams, visions, hallucinations, and the lifelessness of corpses caused primitive people to conclude that the body is inhabited by a soul (Latin, anima). According to this theory, since they frequently dreamed about their deceased loved ones, they assumed that a soul continued living after death, that it left the body and dwelt in trees, rocks, rivers, and so on. Eventually, the dead and the objects the souls were said to inhabit came to be worshiped as gods. And thus, said Tylor, religion was born.
Actually, that's pretty it (didn't like the mormon thing, i dun like discrimination, but it's only my opinon). Everyone can have their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Lucxus
We can search info on either side (believer/sceptical) and find lots of reasons for each one.
It's just that u find something that u can honestly think it's true. And have the humbleness necesary to admit your error if u were wrong in the future.
Interesting. Evolution however is not the same as 'survival of the fittest'. Evolution is the collection of changes that occur with time in a population and there can be mutations and differences between generation so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Survival of the fittest, on the other hand, is Darwin's concept of natural selection, which drives evolution. But natural selection is a process of differential survival and reproduction. Survival is one thing, but evolution also requires reproduction and thus, making sex very important in evolution b/c it increases genetic variation, which increases the raw material on which natural selection operates.
So we could have the same origins as apes, monkeys and even bacteria (Darwin's Tree of Life), but that doesn't mean that we haven't evolved from apes.
Eh?Quote:
A theory, commonly called animism, was proposed by the English anthropologist Edward Tylor (1832-1917). He suggested that experiences such as dreams, visions, hallucinations, and the lifelessness of corpses caused primitive people to conclude that the body is inhabited by a soul (Latin, anima). According to this theory, since they frequently dreamed about their deceased loved ones, they assumed that a soul continued living after death, that it left the body and dwelt in trees, rocks, rivers, and so on. Eventually, the dead and the objects the souls were said to inhabit came to be worshiped as gods. And thus, said Tylor, religion was born.
It doesn't affect me directly, but the last two thousand years (A.D. years) are the ones where everything was documented down to a tee. None of that pre-AD, Hammurabi-type nonsense. I want what we KNOW. Plus, those were the years of some of the greatest technological advances known to man (DOCUMENTED).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
Yea, but don't you already have what you know?
I'm human now, so it doesn't matter where I came from. Important is what you can do and what you can't. Not where you came from...
A very important part of your identity is your past. But.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onikaru
We didn't come from monkeys per-se. We did, however, come from a common ancestor. Frankly, I don't see why people get so worked up about this.
By the way... DNA-wise a male chimp and a male human are more similar than a male human and a female human... Just some food for thought.
Who's getting worked up?Quote:
Originally Posted by madcrow
You have food? I'm hungry:/
You think if somebody proves that I'm monkey derivate, I'll start to scratch my back with my foot? Probably not. What you ARE is more important than what you WAS. Human differ from another. They have little in common, so they have even less in common with apes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
I beg to differ. What you are is important of course, but if it wasn't for who you were, you wouldn't be who you are today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onikaru
I would say some evolutionist whould disagree with you, they have answered many doubts with the Survival of the fittest line. There are to many theorys, What is noteworthy about this theory is how quickly it became popular among scientists after the publication of Darwin�s book The Origin of Species. It was accepted long before there was any time to test the book�s hypotheses or find proofs for them in the fossil record. Why? Evolutionist Hoimar v. Ditfurth makes the candid admission: �Science is by definition the attempt to see how far man and nature can be explained without recourse to miracles.� (The Origins of Life, by H. v. Ditfurth) Is it surprising, then, that scientists have eagerly seized on the evolution theory, spending much time and effort trying to prove it and very little trying to see if it can be disproved? The only alternative, creation, would be a miracle�which to them is unthinkable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
The definition of species could be �A family or group of living creatures or things that are interfertile among themselves, but not fertile with others outside their family. (That is, whose sex cells will unite to form, or begin to form, an offspring; but with those of another �kind� or family are absolutely incompatible and unable to unite.)� This definition is the same as the old definition once given to �species.� Then �species� was used to mean the offspring of a single specially created pair. But with the advent of the theory of evolution �species� has changed meaning and according to present-day scientific usage numerous species may all be of the one Biblical kind. When variations occur within the one kind evolutionists speak of some of them as new species and as evidence that species change; according to their narrowed-down definition of �species� it is true, but species do not change if we hold to the old definition of the term and which coincides with the above definition of the Biblical kind.
animism another theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
didn't every human start off as a bit of sperm? from human or monkey alike? lol
I've not studied spermology.Quote:
Originally Posted by \/3n0(V)
It's like the "who came first, the chicken or the egg?"
if you belive in creation, then you would know it was the chicken... with evolution it's debatable...
It takes more then Sperm.Quote:
Originally Posted by \/3n0(V)
You sir are the Winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by madcrow
You don't even believe in Micro Evolution...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
I do not belive we came from apes, is the main point.Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamGuy
Well that's Macro Evolution not Micro Evolution... Micro evolution has to do with Viruses, and Bacteria and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
They are two entirly diffrent subjects though, I just don't see why you ask,Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamGuy
I think Science summed up the controversy: �The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution [small changes within the species] can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution [big jumps across species boundaries]. . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.�
A certain species goes along unchanged for millions of years, and then, in just a few thousand years, it quickly changes into a new species. They call it macroevolution It happens so fast there is no chance to leave a fossil memento of the transition.
Well I asked because you said you don't believe in evolution... Microevolution is evolution so what you said is you don't believe in microevolution or macroevolution... That's why I asked... because I just wanted to clairify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Ah see all that quote is saying that, the Mechanisms that cause microevolution do not cause Macroevolution. This however does not mean that Macroevolution cannot have it's own mechanisms... that may or may not effect microevolution...
I do not belive Humans evolved. Micro evolution, in the terms you put it, is possible but no, I belive humans were made as humans. I am as undecided as you are on microevolution (in the terms that you put it)Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamGuy
I was using the term Evolution in the context of the subject of this thread.
Microevolution is a proven fact, though... But yes, madcrow does win. I was starting to think all of you were entirely ignorant.
I really could not say, If you say so, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
I just thought this thread was about Apes - Men.
I think the biggest problem with evolution and people today is they arent taught the whole theory, only parts deemed important by the government. While I dont have the theory memorized, i know it is a bit more complex then what they teach