It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design is NOT the same as Creationism

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Let's get one thing straight once and for all. Intelligent Design is NOT the same thing as Creationism! To clarify this I'm going to define Creationism. A Creationist is a person who believes that the Book of Genesis is literally true...that the world was created in 7 days(around 4004BC), that Adam was created out of dirt by God's breath and the Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs...LITERALLY!!

I am NOT a Creationist. For most of my adult life I was a subscriber to Random Evolution, even during those periods of time when I believed in God. To label all supporters of Intelligent Design as Creationists is like labeling all Random Evolutionists as Atheists. All Atheists must be Random Evolutionists but all Random Evolutionists don't have to be Atheists and similarly all Intelligent Designers don't have to be Creationists! It's perfectly feasible for an intelligent, open-minded person to look at the SCIENTIFIC evidence and come to the conclusion that Random Evolution could not possibly explain what biology and genetics have turned up. Let me give you three examples that seem very convincing to me.

One. In order for our brains to perceive what our eyes 'see', there has to be a complex series of chemical reactions. 40 in all and all 40 have to be present or the brain won't 'see' anything. There is no mechanism in Random Evolution (RE) that can explain how all 40 chemical reactions suddenly came into existence at the same time. Since anything less than all 40 being present means no sight, then there's no advantage to only having 1 or 2 or 39 chemical reactions and if there's no advantage then there's no reason why offspring with these chemical reactions should remain in the gene pool to pass their genes on. That's what RE claims is required...only genes that give it's host an advantage are likely to be passed on to the wider gene pool. So how did eyes evolve with that kind of complexity?

Two. Apes have 48 chromosomes and Humans have 46. What happened there? Well, it appears that two smaller chromosomes suddenly, for no explicable reason, hooked up with each other like two railroad cars and they've been together ever since. That's what RE says. ID says 'wait a minute, is it really that simple?' When you take a very close look at the surviving gene in Humans, you see that yes there is one part that resembles an Ape gene and another part that resembles another Ape gene but there's also a piece of genetic material in the center, that doesn't correspond to any Ape gene at all. Somehow, two ape genes happened to touch and hook up to a third piece of genetic material, AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE SAME CELL! Chromosomes merging is so rare that as far as we know, it's never happened since so what are the chances that the only time it happend, it happened twice at exactly the same time?

Three. Still on the topic of # of chomosomes in apes and humans. Ever wonder why cats and dogs can't interbred? It's because they have different # of chromosomes. Therefore it's virtually certain that an Ape egg can't be fertilized by a human sperm cell and a human egg can't be fertilized by an ape sperm cell. SO...if that's the case, how did the first 46 chromosome child(mutation) of a pair of 48 chromosome ape parents manage to have further offspring if that single 46 chromosome individual was surrounded by 48 chromosome apes? With no other 46 chromosome individuals around to mate with, the first 46 chromosome individual should have died without passing it's genes on to anyone. I have yet to hear or read a logical answer to this question by an Evolutionist expert.

Intelligent Design advocates look at scientific facts. Something which Random Evolutionists tend to ingore.




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
"Chromosomes merging is so rare that as far as we know, it's never happened since so what are the chances that the only time it happend, it happened twice at exactly the same time?"

So false it';s not even wrong. Chromosome mutation is fairly common

see
www.biology-online.org...

"AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE SAME CELL!"

No, wrong again, "same cell" is different than "same chromosome."

"To clarify this I'm going to define Creationism."

You defined it wrong. There are young earth and old earth versiaons of creationism. Ther is no meaningful difference between intelligent design and old earth creationism



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Yes, the fact is that no such so-called "fusion" is found at that location in any ape, ONLY humans. Eventually it will have to be found that all the fusions in all animals don't match each other.

Evolution vs. Chinese Wisdom

Some people have attempted to claim Gene sequencing has proved chromosomes, have somehow in some way "fused". This however, is not true. So in order to attept to fabricate evidence of this, they decided to go to the 3 billion genome sequences that were mapped.
www.ornl.gov...


They say "guess what, it's chromosome 2 that fused making the monkey chromosome turn into a man chromosome".......... GUESS WHAT? huh? wtf? what about the others?.... Oh i see, you get to pick any chromosome you want! well that makes it easy

So you you see, according to your faulty set up standards, all you needed to find was ONE ANOMOLY OUT OF 3 BILLION GENOME SEQUENCES? This is what is called "moving the goalposts, so as to not be able to miss." It is unthinkable that throughout 300 billion sequences you would not find one anomaly that could prove ANY THEORY ABOUT ANYTHING! There are way more sequences to mine than stars in the night sky!!!!!

Ken Miller's Cold Fusion
www.evolutionnews.org...

What does Neo-Darwinism Predict with regards to Chromosomal History in Humans and Apes?
Under Neo-Darwinism, humans and extant apes obviously share a common ancestor. But how many chromosomes did that alleged ancestor have? Miller made his prediction that there was a fusion event simply by counting chromosomes in apes and humans—not by analyzing the chromosomes themselves.

Miller started off his "prediction" by simply observing that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pairs; therefore two ape chromosomes were fused into one human chromosome. Miller claims that this simple chromosome-counting requires a fusion event if common ancestry is true. But is that really the case?

Why couldn't it be the case that the common ancestor had 23 distinct chromosomes, and one chromosome underwent duplication in the line that led to apes? Or maybe the common ancestor had 20 distinct chromosomes and there have been 4 duplications events in the ape line, and 3 in the human line?; or maybe the ancestor had 30 distinct chromosomes and there have been 6 fusion events for ape-line but 7 fusion events for the human-line.

Do you see my point? Simple chromosome-counting or comparisons of numbers of chromosomes does not lead common ancestry to make any hard predictions about how many chromosomes our alleged ape-human common ancestor had. So, under Miller's logic, there is no reason why a chromosomal fusion event is a necessary prediction of common ancestry for all upper primates.

In fact, if we find evidence that humans have two distinct chromosomes that have evidence of fusion (i.e., let's say human chromosome #2 has fusion evidence, and then, hypothetically, we also find evidence for fusion on human chromosome #9), then under Miller's logic, if apes lack any evidence for a fused chromosome, then this should count against common ancestry. Thus, at the present time, absent a full analysis of fusion evidence in our chromosomes, we cannot necessarily say that the presence of one fused chromosome in humans is a prediction of common ancestry. Much more research still needs to be done.

If Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion Tale is True, What does it mean for Common Ancestry?
But let's take Miller's word for a second, and assume, ad arguendo (for the sake of argument), that there MUST have been a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. What does this mean for common descent?

Miller then testified how human chromosome #2 has two centromeres, which are the central - attachment points used for pulling a chromosome to one end of a cell during mitosis. Chromosomes normally only have one centromere, but human chromosome # 2 looks like two chromosomes were fused together, because it has two centromeres (or at least, it has one normal centromere, and another region that looks a lot like a centromere). Futhermore, Miller noted how chromosome #2 has a section where there are two telomeres, structures normally at the tips of chromosomes, which are found in the middle of chromosome #2. Essentially, these two telomeres are oriented in a way that it looks, genetically speaking, like the ends of two chromosomes were fused together.

So I am more than willing to acknowledge and affirm that Miller did provide some very good direct empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. But I'm more interested in two other questions: if we accept Miller's chromosomal fusion evidence as accurate, then (1) is his chromosome fusion story good evidence for Neo-Darwinian common ancestry between humans and apes? Or (2) does it perhaps pose great problems for a Neo-Darwinian account?

The answer to question (1) is "NO" and the answer to question (2) is "YES!"

Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you NOTHING about Alleged Common Ancestry with Apes
All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in humans. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.

The fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes. But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes. (I grant that our chromosome #2 has banding patterns similar to two ape chromosomes, but given that our chromosome structure is generally similar to that of apes anyways, it is not a stretch to assume that any 48 chromosome ancestor of you and me had a chromosome structure similar to apes, regardless of whether or not that individual was related to apes. Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Under Neo-Darwinism, the common ancestor of humans and apes is thought to have lived about six million years ago. But under Miller's account, it is entirely possible that this chromosomal fusion event happened only 50,000 years ago. In such a case, this chromosomal fusion event thus needs not have anything to do with making us human-like as opposed to ape-like. Clearly this chromosomal fusion event could be extremely far removed from any alleged ancestry with apes.

In essence, we don't know that this chromosomal fusion event happened on a line which leads back to some alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. All we know is that this fusion event happened in the line that led to you and me. Whether that line has common ancestry with apes is a separate question which cannot be answered by this fusion evidence.

All that evolutionists have claimed is that this fusion event occurred after the split that led to humans, so it occurs only in the human lineage. Evidence of a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence that our line leads all the way back to apes.

Given that we had a 48-chromosome ancestor, we don't know if our 48-chromosome ancestor was an ape or not. For all we know, our 48-chromosome ancestor was a part of a separately designed species, as fully human as anyone you meet on the street today. There is no good reason to think that going from a 46-chromosome individual to a 48-chromosome individual would make our species more ape-like.

Common descent could not have been falsified if there was no evidence for a fusion event, but common descent certainly is not refuted by the presence of a fusion event. The question now stands, does this fusion event provide any evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes? The answer to that question is no.


I would also add, it is much more likely that cells would seperate rather than fuse!

Here is some info but garunteed the conlusions are wrong, but still it's info on the subject of alleged chromosome bonding to understand it better
www.indiana.edu...







But then you have a simple fact, that the ancient chinese had already written down the structure of the DNA 5000 years ago in the form of the pre-natal qi diagram.

Now, if i were to make that claim, I have to get every single hexagram, every single sequence, matching the DNA in a logical and tangible pattern. If i miss a sigle Line of a single trigram, everyone will say it is wrong

DNA was known for thousands of years-
www.tortuga.com...



www.tomshinsky.com...


Prenatal Qi matches each and every chromosome, not just one-




To prove evolution: One anomaly in billions sequences out of 48 chromosomes has to match the theory

To prove ancient Chinese Science: Every Hexagram has to match the DNA sequence, 384 lines have to correspond exactly

Conclusion: Ancient Chinese Sicence is superior to modern sicence






"evolution" is nonsense and scientifically disproven
j.b5z.net...
j.b5z.net...


There is no such thing as "fish" gene, or a "bird" chromosome, or a "primate" chromosome. There is no such thing as an "inverted", or an "inside out" chromosome. DNA and Genes simply are whole long strands, of many smaller parts which fit together acording to I Ching principles of Yin and Yang. They can fit together in the same way magnets can be attracted, and just how magnets can be repelled some genes cannot fit. That's all. You have superimposed, and force-fitted human and chimp chromosomes to match, and claimed that proves relation when it does not To say "primate" genes is dishonest. There is no genetic mechanism for evolution, or gene change. It can't happen

No missing link yet.....................



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
I agree. Intelligent design is not the same as creationism.

Creationism is honest primitivism. Creationists bow down in the Great Spirit in the Sky and don't need explanations or excuses for doing it. They are honest irrationalists, people who believe in magic and don't care who knows it. They wear their ignorance and obscurantism like a badge of pride.

Intelligent design is a lie that knows it is a lie. It is creationism dressing up in the ill-fitting habiliments of science in order to sneak religion into American schools. It has absolutely nothing to do with science -- see my thread Proof of ID the world is looking for, which has run to 14 pages without anyone being able to post a single scientifically acceptable ID argument on it.

Intelligent design is one of the most futile and contemptible human endeavours of recent times. It is a hopeless moral and intellectual failure.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a donkey with 62 chromosome can breed with a horse(64 chromosomes) to produce a mule or a hinny. on rare occasion a fertile hybrid is produced. I would bet that one could find the fused pair of chromosomes that is required by common ancestry of donkeys and horses.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory

Intelligent Design advocates look at scientific facts. Something which Random Evolutionists tend to ingore.


AHEM. What facts, exactly?

The fact that we have no idea who or what created the universe, for an unknown (and probably nonexistent) reason?

The fact that there is absolutely no testable scientific evidence associated with intelligent design?

I would just like to know exactly what facts ID'ers are looking at that Evolutionists aren't.

And by the way, "random evolution" is not the widely accepted scientific model of evolution. While there is certainly a randomness to life, that theory doesn't take natural selection or adaptation into account at all.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


The theory of intelligent design states that an omnipotent being created the universe and everything in it for reasons we cannot, and are not meant to, comprehend. There is no quantifiable evidence to support this theory, there are no hypotheses that can be proven or disproven using this theory, and it offers no predictive ability for any past, present or future events.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Intelligent design is a lie that knows it is a lie. It is creationism dressing up in the ill-fitting habiliments of science in order to sneak religion into American schools. It has absolutely nothing to do with science -- see my thread Proof of ID the world is looking for, which has run to 14 pages without anyone being able to post a single scientifically acceptable ID argument on it.


That is EXACTLY the same as Kent Hovind's $250g boobie prize for proof of evolution. "Scientifically acceptable" my a$$, you don't believe in it so nothing will satisfy you as proof.

I feel that there are only 2 alternatives to teaching about our origins:
1. Teach evolution and creationism/IDism as possibilities and teach kids that WE DON'T KNOW how it all came about.
2. Remove both from the curriculum. Neither theories can be proven to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, so neither should be taught.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock
That is EXACTLY the same as Kent Hovind's $250g boobie prize for proof of evolution. "Scientifically acceptable" my a$$, you don't believe in it so nothing will satisfy you as proof.

I feel that there are only 2 alternatives to teaching about our origins:
1. Teach evolution and creationism/IDism as possibilities and teach kids that WE DON'T KNOW how it all came about.
2. Remove both from the curriculum. Neither theories can be proven to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, so neither should be taught.


As BW said on your original ID thread asty,

"You want science... we want truth. They are not the same thing."

in fact, they're not even close. Occasionally, science gets lucky. Until you've read "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis, i'll seriously ignore whatever you say; because without understanding what i've just said in context. It's pointless to discuss with you.

1. Dawkins inadvertently agrees that both should be taught in school. I saw him in a video once, telling a hasidic Jew that he should teach his children both evolution and Judaism ; and then let the children decide which they want to believe. Wouldn't Dawkins be a hypocrite if he did not expect the same thing to apply to other children visa versa?

2. Agreed. If it were up to me, the only things that would be taught, preschool through high school, are grammar, business, art, computer sciences, law, math and philosophy. Most people throw their money towards a college education anyways. I'm sure college could handle all the biased and subjective subjects. ;big grin;

[edit on 6/20/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by Astyanax
see my thread Proof of ID the world is looking for,


You mean your complete sham of a troll thread? :shk: Sure see it if you want to laugh at Asty and his buds getting exposed.



Hmmmm if we evolved from apes why wouldn't we have more chromosomes instead of less?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 

You're looking handsome these days, JP.


As BW said on your original ID thread asty,

"You want science... we want truth. They are not the same thing."

Yes, he said that, didn't he? But I didn't say it. I am very interested in the truth, which is why I long ago abandoned religious dogma as a source of explanation for anything.


Until you've read "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis, i'll seriously ignore whatever you say; because without understanding what i've just said in context. It's pointless to discuss with you.

Is Miracles better than Perelandra, his ghastly moral parable tarted up as science fiction? I read that when I was young and it made me quite sick. I've read quotes from various other works of his since, and without exception they were instances of desperate rationalization undertaken to fit perfectly innocent phenomena into his crepuscular, nauseous, self-hating worldview. You had better suggest another proselytist; I'm afraid that one has failed with me.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You mean your complete sham of a troll thread? :shk: Sure see it if you want to laugh at Asty and his buds getting exposed.

Cordial thanks for your endorsement.

Yes folks, do drop by and have a giggle. Believers in intelligent design can take up the OP challenge at the same time. The big prize is still unclaimed!

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JPhish
You're looking handsome these days, JP.


ha thanx, nice painting by undo; funny cause it's the exact opposite of what i look like ^_^


Yes, he said that, didn't he? But I didn't say it. I am very interested in the truth, which is why I long ago abandoned religious dogma as a source of explanation for anything.


Find what you believe to be the truth where you may, but do not claim to be an authority on it.


Originally posted by JPhish Until you've read "Miracles"


you can't understand what i've said in context, unless you've read that particular book.

It's ok that you don't like his tract. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[edit on 6/21/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


you can't understand what i've said in context, unless you've read that particular book

Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night;
Phish said 'let Lewis be!' and all was light.


I think not.

If someone cannot understand what you say without having read a book by C.S. Lewis, the onus is not on them to read the book, but on you to explain yourself better.

Give it a shot. Let's see what you're made of.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
No wonder our school system is going down the drain when you have peole claiming that evolution said that we evolved from apes.


I remember it was that men and apes shared a common ancestor


Yes back then students were actually learning something.


Actually the only difference between creationism and ID is that at least ID leaves room for alien intervention


While creationism only prof comes from an ancient book that happens to be the bible and the personal accounts of a groups of people called the Israelis their humble beginnings, their interactions and evolution from polytheistic to monotheistic, handle out during centuries by men with their own personal accounts, lore, myth, imagination and religious agendas.

I am not Israeli so their creation story is theirs not mine

At least ID kind of match my own personal believes of how we came to be.


I love the alien intervention.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


That might be true, but the Intelligent Design movement, that we hear so much from, was born directly from the Creationist movement. They just changed their name so people wouldn't laugh quite so much, and would give them at least 4 minutes before realising they're the same old joke trying to muscle its way to the grown-ups table.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


ok . . . i'll humor you. . .

Occasionally, science gets lucky. . . .

through experiment and inference you gain knowledge.

Our senses used to retrieve data from the experiments, are not perfect.
(according to evolution) The capacity of one persons' senses, varies from another's. Nothing can ever be measured with certainty because of human error, and only things trialled countless times can be "predicted".

Like flipping a coin. There is no way to predict which side it will land on in just a few tosses. You can't even predict that 50% of the time it will fall on heads. Because by chance it may land on tails ten times in a row. But if you flip a google of coins a google amount of times; odds are the averages will show that 50% of the time, the coins landed on heads.

anyways . . . . you apply knowledge retrieved through inference and experimentation, to your logic . . . our logic is not perfect. (according to evolution)

Evolution says that everything is constantly adapting and evolving, even us. If we are subject to "change" . . . our minds and logic are as well. This implies that our logic is either near "perfect" and declining, or not even close yet still progressing.

Everyones perception of the world varies. What i see as the color orange, you may perceive as the color blue. We both know it as orange, but there's really no way to ever know we're experiencing the same things. Which makes everything inherently subjective to some degree.

Even though evolution pretty much mocks the very reason(logic) that supports it; it still may be correct occasionally. But according to evolution, only through random chance.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Has anybody ever considered Accidental Evoltionary Design?

I'm gonna quote from a book

'The cosmic serpent' - Jeremy Narby

"During the first 2 billion years the planet was only inhabited by anaerobic bacteria, for which oxygen is a poison. These bacteria lived in water, and some of them learned to use the hydrogen contained in the h20 molecule while expelling the oxygen."

Kinda reminds me of tree's... anyway I digress, to quote some more...

"The gradual enrichment of the atmosphere with oxygen allowed the appearance of a new kind of cell, capable of using oxygen and equipped with a nucleusfor packing together its DNA. These nucleated cells are at least thirty times more volimnous than the bacteria cells.

According to biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan; ' the biological transition between bacteria and nucleated cells.... is so sudden it cannot be effectively be explained by gradual changes over time'...

From that moment onward, life as we know it took shape. Nucleated cells became mutlicellular beings, such as algae. The latter also produce oxygen by photosynthesis."

To avoid quoting too much I'll jump to my point...

roughly 550 million years ago, life erupted on this planet in all manner of forms, algae, plants, and increasingly animals that somehow leanred not survive outside of water and soon able to live not just on land but also fly.

From one spore came thousands and thousands of varieties of life, some form becoming vegetation (expelling the oxygen) and some using the oxygen...

Throught this unification, a kind of balance arrived, life got braver as new horizons opened....

Over centuries and centuries due to environmental and genetic attributes, changes became apparent in animals... Slower creatures maybe stuck to the tree's and dine on fruit, faster reatures scuttled to feast on frog larvae maybe...

This increasingly large number of animals then dined on everything... some found it easier to eat shallow water fish for example and evolved to catch them (maybe eventually growing hard callouses on fins that became claws or paws... ( I mean look at the duck billed platypus) some ate snails and insects, some prefered the taste of slower animals, some preferred to stick with the algae, some like the blue plant with the sweet fruit, some animals liked the taste of those strange scuttling things....

So basically what i'm trying to say is...

element X + element Y create element Z (basic life)

element Z develops in perfect pockets of a previously dangerous environment (remember element Z is only basic at this point)...

Some of this element Z accidently gathers at a shore rich in mineral 1

some of this element Z accidently floats into a warmer clime and reacts to mineral 1 and mineral 2 creating element Z3 (say a type of life that clings to rocks?)

some element Z gets a bit of mineral from 2+4 creating element Z6 that doesn't just stick to the rocks but feeds off element Z3 and therefore grows faster than the other element Z's....

from one type of life in an environmental playground such as the first days of hospitable earth, many combination started occuring.

Also there are plants that mimic bee's to carry on the pollenating process.... this wasn't a case of a plant thinking 'oh i'd better look like a bee so a bee can come and mate with me and take my pollen to another plant'... this was a plant through some serious trail and error and experimentation accidently caught on to the right design....

Beneficial to both bee and plant.

We'll call that plant Plant 5 for example, but i'm willing to bet some money on the idea that plant 1,2,3 and 4 were all nearly right but through the accidental 'ingenuity' of the code of environmental reaction and trail and error, plant 5 was that little bit more attractive to that bee... For a LONG time, species learned to somehow coexist in their ecological system...

They grew, they changed, they adapted and the one's that didn't, either survived by sheer luck or were just overwhelmed by the evergrowing, ever changing force of nature, of the design that is.... the framework that all life works towards...

My guess is.... New species have arrived by accident (say single cells on meteors crashing into protein rich ponds for example), or by an evolutionary acident.... like a certain ape started to eat a certain food (they say apes developed their ability to stand up straight by wading in shallow water for fish... this use of new muscles and protein rich diets shows how change can maybe come about... they adapted to survive...)

The question is not 'is evolution true', but more so, 'what is that unconscious force that reacts to the environment'...

What is the one thing that links everything?

Some would say God, some would say aliens, I'm going to say.... It may have been a very, very interetsing chemical and biological reaction that didn't take minutes, but took a millenia and then some...

Time as we know it, is only meausred in human terms... We cater for our daily needs, to survive and exist... we do not think what we'll be like in 10,000 years, as that part of us is left to environmental change and adaptation...

Thos first apes to step into the sea, didn't think oh I'm evolving into a better ape, they just did it because they realised slow moving crabs and fish were easy prey and the sea weed tasted nice.

Lo and behold, those bipeds eventually somehow became more and more adapt at dealing with their environment. They figured a sharp branch could crack a crab shell without them being snapped by the pincers, this idea was mimicked and sure enough the ape's hands changed.... to hold tools more efficiently...

The brains developed... possibly more so through a trial and error process, this ape learned to relax and stop worryin, it had an endless supply of food, it could concentrate on other things like social status, like which ape has the right to eat the fish first, and then came the split between species (not just for apes but for everything, felines adapted to varyin environments and spread out, some prefered the cover of the jungle, some the long grass of the plains.....)

Element Z1000 - the cheeta for example changed to its needs, its fur changed so it could match the yellow grass, whilst element Z1003 the white lynx suited the snow, so its fur changed (thicker and whiter)...

and etc etc etc...

So something like Z1 eats Z6 in environment X4, Z1+Z6 =7 (Crocodile eats fish in fresh water environment ).... whilst Z1 eats Z6 in environment X5 (crocodile adapts to saltier water, eventually becomes saltwater crocodile)

Can anyone else see what i'm saying....

Time is our limitation.... We are a HUGE evolving mass consciousness, that exists in a dangerously fierce yet cooperative environment...

So many combinations are possible, so many have died, so many have not even been born.

One Love

Mr - L



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Humans are apes, fyi.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join