hasnt evolution been proven?

Originally posted by cheeser
apparently its true...
the mitochondrial DNA doesnt change, every human has the decendant of a woman, whose mitochondria we all share, a woman who was nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve. The mitochondrial DNA from a woman who lived approximately 170,000 years ago.

A human Eve with a not so human mother perhaps? I need to double check this [more surfing but I think I will find it mostly under 'god' sites].. but if this were true it wouldn't illiminate the possibility of evolution.. it would just make 'Eve' the first homo sapien.

[And I doubt anyone will be able to answer the time difference short of saying god sent a turkey baster 100 thousand year back in time.]

Originally posted by ninki
WELL I HAVE FOUND SOME FACTS. YOU CAN LOOK IT OVER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, AT LEAST IT WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY AND TO THE POINT RILEY....

Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA

Recent DNA techniques are extreamily accurate. The ones these refer to are now obsolete.. unless you are a desperate fundy trying to prove a point. What you quoted was very similar to the url cheeser provided.. same source? No doubt these 'scientists' think the earth is only 6000 years old as well. Strange you post something up and then add something as stupid as this to your 'argument'.

short and sweet...try mating a monkey and a human what do you get?.................nothing.

Wow. How clever. You pasted all that pretending to understand all the specifics about DNA science yet.. by your logic someone should be able to breed an alley cat and a lion together. A lion and a cat are in the feline family.. do you dispute this? Humans are in the primate family.. naked apes. Deal with it.

BTW You didn't answer the question [avoided yet again] or even provide a source for your 'answer' as requested.. [a legit and credible science one.. not one peppered with bible quotes] and you just ripped off someone else's work so you can say "But they're not related so there!"
It is clear you feel better believing in Adam and Eve and being god's 'special little child' that the universe revolves around.. or.. maybe it just a case of "But I don't wanna be a monkey!". That is up to you but for me this is a time waster.

Try learn something that isn't in the OT:

www.becominghuman.org...

www.handprint.com...

[edit on 9-12-2004 by riley]

Ok,

I want an anti-evolution buff to answer me one question at a time. Simple, easy questions. Christians, please, don't be shy!

First question is a "yes or no" question.

When two people have children, is it common for the child to bear traits of its parents....for example facial features, or height? Yes, or no?

FIRST OF ALL NINKI IS NOT A HE!!!!!lol....NEXT NINKI HAS A 1 YEAR OLD. you said in your post that you wanted an answer, so i found one, and put it up there in small letters so that everyone would know it came from somewhere else!!!!...everything i wrote was in bold italics...i wanted to post the link but i lost the web sight, because my little boy was screamin about elmo in the backround! and i had to run....you can post the sight all you want, i hope people go there...you have a theory ...i have a theory...if anything, you wont accept other peoples opinions...so just go ahead and surround yourself with people who believe like you do ...makes your life a whole lot less stressful...i mean you dont have to think. as for me i dont care to exchange nasty comments with either of you ..i posted what i believe,,i know what you believe and despite your repitious babbling about stupidity,,,,,you still only have a theory.

Originally posted by ninki
Cheeser..i have healthy fear for nothing but the god whom made me...i do not understand why, when you are pushed for evedence you resort to slams on my mental capabilitys?...personal jabs, about ones being stupid,still do not proove your point......here is a question for you?assuming all the modern tribes and races developed from a common ancestral stock that evolved in africa....where do we get all the varietys of men? if races developed through mutation,natural selection,recombination,and segrigation...it would require upwards of 50,000 years to get 1 new race established..according to evolutionists...PROBLEM...this would make some races more advanced than others.....see i believe all the physical characteristics of all peoples were already present by creation CREATING ALL MEN EQUAL.................................................................................and now for BORDNLAry...answer to your question is arthritis...and calcium buildup....read the bible they lived alot longer when the eartth was still covered by a bio dome...an atmos dome...this would make skealital remains to appear stooped or shorter...now for you a question...what about the giants we have uncovered...where did they come from? just because we been short dont mean we been monkeys...

Please define giants....and tell me where we found them. I have never heard that, and I question your sources reliability.

Ninki, you say you have a 1 year old boy. I am sure he is beautiful. Does he look anything like you? Or maybe his father?

[edit on 12/9/2004 by Seapeople]

Originally posted by ninki
you said in your post that you wanted an answer, so i found one,

You found something that infers that chimps and humans are not related.. thus avoiding the question. I asked for you to explain how chimps and humans could be related when you say there is no evolution. This FACT is not a theory. It is a proven fact.. not only with dna but their features makes it pretty obvious.

and put it up there in small letters so that everyone would know it came from somewhere else!!!!...everything i wrote was in bold italics

It isn't reading that way to us.. it's normal text and is difficult to distinguish your own opinion from the quoted.

...i wanted to post the link but i lost the web sight,

I would appreciate it, if you have the time.. to find the same information but from an objective, scientific source.. if it is true it should be common knowledge. If you provide one that has anything to do with religion it will not be accurate and reliable as their will be bias and facts are always twisted or made up to suit an agenda.

you have a theory ...i have a theory...if anything, you wont accept other peoples opinions...

Something has stopped being a theory when it has numerous facts to back it up.. please keep an open mind and consider them seriously before just dismissing them because they don't match your ideal. In an indonesian island a clan of 'little people' were recently found.. thats even more evidence for you.. yet you haven't provided anything concrete.
Take a look and you can tell me why there is a miniture version of a human skull. It's very interesting.
news.bbc.co.uk...
abcnews.go.com...

i posted what i believe,,i know what you believe and despite your repitious babbling about stupidity,,,,,you still only have a theory.

I called your argument stupid.. not you personally. Chimps and humans.. though closely related aren't close enough to cross breed [and thats kinda sick anyway] ..but there is some evidence that neandathols and early humans did.. though I'm still undecided on that. They used to think neandathols were actually our ancestors but it turns out they existed at the same time as us.. and we.. probably wiped them out. :bash:
Survival of the fittest!

[edit on 9-12-2004 by riley]

Seapeople...my little man is a mix of both to answer your question...and on the giant note...you gotta search a bit but to help you start out...The book of Enoch..The Bible...the first europeans to sail along the patagonia coast reported giants...The adena group of people said to be giants...giant footprints in arizona...22" footprints in new mexico with a 5 foot stride...human giant remains found in java,and south africa...etc..etc...very interesting

Riley- that was my point..chimps and humans though closly related...are not the same. the 4% dna that seperates them is a world of difference(assuming that there is even as much as 96% similarity)...of course it would be sick and would not work to have humans and chimps mate...i do believe in evolution inside of a species though...horses,donkeys....dog breeds with other dog breeds...etc.i think it is so lame that you say,"if it has anything to do with religion it will not be acurate"..by that you mean the bible,,,,,,and by that you mean, that just because you said so, it is law. you know that is rather arrogant. you have re-writen the law? you certainly are a clay pot yelling at the potter.....you did not make me.!!!!....the potter does not cease to exhist...the little pot just looks silly.

Originally posted by ninki
Riley- that was my point..chimps and humans though closly related...are not the same. the 4% dna that seperates them is a world of difference(assuming that there is even as much as 96% similarity)...of course it would be sick and would not work to have humans and chimps mate...i do believe in evolution inside of a species though...horses,donkeys....dog breeds with other dog breeds...etc.i think it is so lame that you say,"if it has anything to do with religion it will not be acurate"..by that you mean the bible,,,,,,and by that you mean, that just because you said so, it is law. you know that is rather arrogant. you have re-writen the law? you certainly are a clay pot yelling at the potter.....you did not make me.!!!!....the potter does not cease to exhist...the little pot just looks silly.

if you believe evolution exsist inside a species, why would it not make sense to you that the biological principle or evolution wouldnt exsist to the extend of outside a species???
i dont understand, its like me saying. *God isnt real, but i had a cup of tea with him the other day*

and i also agree with riley, about his statement about religion being inaccurate. I go to a catholic school atm, and believe me, theres alot of twisting going on. If the bible is talking #... ohh no, that just figurate... ohh no you have to take that from a spirtatual point of view. You can get a pink hippo out of a rock if you really wanted to, and plus, how old is the bible?
With scientific books, the facts are facts, no twisitng no wish-wash.

Religion is there for people that want to hang onto meaning. Evolution is accepting the cold and harsh truths

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by cheeser
apparently its true...
the mitochondrial DNA doesnt change, every human has the decendant of a woman, whose mitochondria we all share, a woman who was nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve. The mitochondrial DNA from a woman who lived approximately 170,000 years ago.

A human Eve with a not so human mother perhaps? I need to double check this [more surfing but I think I will find it mostly under 'god' sites].. but if this were true it wouldn't illiminate the possibility of evolution.. it would just make 'Eve' the first homo sapien.

[And I doubt anyone will be able to answer the time difference short of saying god sent a turkey baster 100 thousand year back in time.]

There are indications that there was more than likly of been several Eves, but you have to think about it very hard. There may of been other eves before her. But there *family free* ended... get me? and there may of been many eves where there whole family tree just died off 30,000 years ago. and that in todays present homo-sapiens that only one Eve's family has servived out of the 7eves originally or so?





[edit on 12/09/2004 by cheeser]

Originally posted by Seapeople
Ok,

I want an anti-evolution buff to answer me one question at a time. Simple, easy questions. Christians, please, don't be shy!

First question is a "yes or no" question.

When two people have children, is it common for the child to bear traits of its parents....for example facial features, or height? Yes, or no?

YES

Cheeser.........your metaphor does not make sence. Species adapt but they do not become something other than what they already are.I can emagine there is lots of twisting going on in a religious catholic school, dont sound fun to me. My god came to destroy that kind of hipocrocy.....i do not have a religion i have a relationship with my creator.Religion is for people who want to be called "good people" evolution is the religion of and practice of reasoning away ,from simple salvation. Darwin himself said something like this......these things i have proposed are highly unlikely,,,but to think of the alternative (god) would be unthinkable. The religion of running away from what your scared to know.

Originally posted by ninki
Riley- that was my point..chimps and humans though closly related...are not the same.

So we agree on something.. rephrasing same question::bnghd:

How could they end up related to us without evolution or an ancestrial link? Whats the alternative scientific explanation?

i think it is so lame that you say,"if it has anything to do with religion it will not be acurate"..by that you mean the bible,,,,,,and by that you mean, that just because you said so, it is law. you know that is rather arrogant. you have re-writen the law? you certainly are a clay pot yelling at the potter.....you did not make me.!!!!....the potter does not cease to exhist...the little pot just looks silly.

Not just because I say so. The bible also insists that the sun and universe revolves around our planet.. and that the earth is only 6000 years old .. do you believe this as well?! It's the bloody height of arrogance to expect me to take such claims seriously.. especially when there is NO proof. What were you saying about yelling pots? :shk:

[edit on 10-12-2004 by riley]

Originally posted by cheeser
There are indications that there was more than likly of been several Eves, but you have to think about it very hard. There may of been other eves before her. But there *family free* ended... get me? and there may of been many eves where there whole family tree just died off 30,000 years ago. and that in todays present homo-sapiens that only one Eve's family has servived out of the 7eves originally or so?

So 'eve' could be the beginning of a new evolutionary mutation? That would suggest the mutations were over one generation than progressive over several. Interesting.
I'm might f# this question but.. did any of the eves traced back to the same area.. exist at a closer time or would some have appeared on the other side of the planet? I'm just wondering about enviroment tiggering mutations and whether they'd happen over entire clans or just here and there.

Riley...i dont think you have ever read the bible as your information is inacurate.......then also i guess you would be living at the height of "bloody arogance"...to believe in your theory that has neither been proven or shown to be fact......here is another question for you...can you show me a fosil series to proove a slow process of evolution? surely if this were to have occured then we would have thousands apon thousands of fosil records to indicate such and yet we do not. your theory has not been explaned theoreticly or with evedence, nor has it been tested experimentally. If evolution occured today as you say it does,,,why do we find No evedence of New complex design in the process of evolving,,,,not aids, not bugs changing colors,,,New biological complex life being Newly created?....................your going to get lots of points for starting this thread..lol

Originally posted by ninki
Riley...i dont think you have ever read the bible as your information is inacurate.......then also i guess you would be living at the height of "bloody arogance"...to believe in your theory that has neither been proven or shown to be fact......

1. I was raised catholic and got taught the bible every single day at school.
2. As an adult I read it twice.. once to verify my perception of it was valid.. and then again because I thought 'wtf' and had to be sure. I know what the bible says and I did not missread it.
3. It is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Do you dispute this? That has been PROVEN wrong by science hasn't it? [not before someone got charged with heracy though] And you have been given a wealth of facts to support evolution and still call it theory without the slightest explanation as to WHY the evidence is worthless and should be dismissed in favour for the bible.. and you reckon I'm arrogent. Glass houses. You just don't WANT to believe in evolution.. thats your choice. Just ignore this topic from now on and you'll feel alot less defensive about your beliefs.

here is another question for you...can you show me a fosil series to proove a slow process of evolution?

If you had even bothered to look at the sites I provided you would see them. And what about the little people fossills recently found? They're almost identical to humans.. but they are so tiny in comparison [their skulls especially] that they can't be considered human [not sure if they've DNAd them yet though]. Would you explain that? No.
And what about my question? Can't answer it can you? Thats why this is my last reply to you.. I have been very patient waiting for a straight answer.. and you even hinted at one.. but I am now giving up because it is clear you don't have one. I am here to learn but you are only trying to validate your own faith so it's futile.
Also.. did you do know that all human beings start off more female than male? 'Overies' turn into testes; means 'Eve' would have existed first.

New biological complex life being Newly created?....................

Bacteria is probably a good example.

....................your going to get lots of points for starting this thread..lol

1. I didn't start this thread.. but I think it's pretty much settled that evolution has been proven..and they've been some really cool pics of skulls to break the repetition up.
2. I don't think you get points for posts at ABS.

Cheeser this may interest you.. not about human evolution but the the origins of all life [jumping the gun I know]:
www.asa3.org...

[edit on 10-12-2004 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by ninki

here is another question for you...can you show me a fosil series to proove a slow process of evolution?

If you had even bothered to look at the sites I provided you would see them.

The trouble with providing transitional fossils when asked, is that you're inevitably asked to provide even more transitional fossils. If, for example, you provide fossils of goat ancestors --the first without horns, the second with 2cm long horns, the next with 5 cm long horns, then 10cm, and so on until you have today's goats-- you'll be asked what happened to 1cm, 3cm, 4cm and so on. If you provide those you'll be asked for milimeter differences.

Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
The trouble with providing transitional fossils when asked, is that you're inevitably asked to provide even more transitional fossils. If, for example, you provide fossils of goat ancestors --the first without horns, the second with 2cm long horns, the next with 5 cm long horns, then 10cm, and so on until you have today's goats-- you'll be asked what happened to 1cm, 3cm, 4cm and so on. If you provide those you'll be asked for milimeter differences.

Another problem is that it may be possible that a transition/mutation may happen in one generation so there is no 'in between' transition.. the only way to find out definently might be to find a 'heavily pregnant' fossil with the mutation? Though I don't think feutuses would fossilise very well [bone density].

[edit on 10-12-2004 by riley]

Ok Ninki, so "your little man is a little of both", when referring to looks and traits compared to you and his father. You said those words yourself. The reason your child looks a little like you, and a little like his father is because he has been handed down your genes. Many things are passed down from generation to generation through genes.

So, I have another question for you Ninki. If you, or the childs father would have died before the child was concieved, would the one who died pass his/her genes on to the next generation? Its seems stupid I even ask that right. Not really.

Lets say you or your husband, were too slow at a time when you needed to be quick and agile to hunt for food. Or you were too slow to get away from lions, or anything like that. As a result you were unable to survive. So you did not have children. YOUR GENES WOULD NOT BE PASSED ON TO THE NEXT GENERATION. At least for the most part. Whats interesting is this.....those people who were really fast...and much more likely to survive... Their genes would not only be passed on....but they would be mating together. Strengthening the "fast" trait. Making offspring much more likely to be fast.

You said it yourself......your child looks like you and his father. You can't argue anything I just said. And what I just described...based on what you said...is evolution.

not realy seapeople, that is not evolution, just your own lame excuse for trying to grasp facts that are not there.the fosil record is not there, the new complex species evolving does not happen,and furthermore your so called evedence is just as strong as mine. what we both have is theory and faith. but in your case you better hope your right. we only get one shot...i was fairly new to this thread but now i see where talking to some of you realy can become like:bnghd:...i have better things to do with my time, and actually i am sure you do as well......i have clearly stated that the issues proposed here are both theorys ...it just makes you angry that someone dares to believe in a creator....i do not care ...how many people were saved in the flood? not the majority, thats for sure. the "facts" for both arguments are there for you to read ,but i think you might be much better off just sticking your head back where its dark and warm......