The Peking Man

monkeys why havent the rest of the intelligent monkey species adapted to match our performance and intelligence on this planet. Darwinism has too many suppositions and holes.

I think you should first actually learn a little about the subject you are debating on.
Chimpanzees are cousins of humans. They branched off a common ancestor and are well adapted for surviving and will likely never evolve into a human.
Try reading about evolution and then you can intelligently participate in a discussion about it.

No, astronomy still stands, the core assumption was that all those little stars in the sky are actually other suns/planets. Then a follow on assumption was that the Earth was at the middle and they all orbited us.

Now that its clear they don't all orbit us, does that mean the stars arent other suns/planets?

Don't complain about ZZZ of trying to mold his reply so as to negate the previous posters inquiry, rather than answer it. When the 'previous poster' wasn't asking any questions. He was just making a blanket statement. A statement based on incorrect facts.

Really, you want to sit on the soapbox and spout about open debate and discussion, let you'd rather people be allowed to just spout ignorant statements without challenge?

Nice way to debate. I never disputed the link between chimps and humans nor did I say that they will evolve into human. All I said was that evolution as a theory is widely accepted not because it is undisputed, but due to the closest possible propability.

As far as intelligently participating into a conversation I am willing to debate with you any time and on any subject you like. I have never insulted anyone in the context of a debate forum but this is absurd!

I'm sorry, I suppose I just get a little worked up about these things and did not read your post in it's entirity.

why havent the rest of the intelligent monkey species adapted to match our performance and intelligence on this planet

That is because they have adapted well to the current environment without our intelligence. When we started to walk upright, it became benificial and we retained that trait. When we started to develop intteligence, it became benificial and we retained it. This did not happen to the other monkey species.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

A little ATS roulette to start off (wouldn't want to be accused of not supporting my position, which will be difficult because I don't have a recognized one) The links give different views on the progression of man (wasn't that P.C?). My theory is that [sic] evolution has occurred in the parallel model as is generally accepted, however, the "holes" represent a "speeding up" process that suggests *puts on tin foil hat* an external "helping hand", please feel free to insert your own mental picture of a helping hand, be it Deity, Extraterrestrial, or Cataclysmically produced. I think that everyone can relate to the first two, but the third method introduces a true survival of the fittest scenario, whereas either natural phenomena (i.e. asteroid impact, or pole reversal) or an introduced (read: alien) factor that would cause a short term (1,000 of years) �gun to the head� inducement of change in species (possibly selected).

The previous exchanges brought to mind of something similar from my younger days:


VIZZINI
I'm afraid so -- I can't compete with you physically. And you're no match for my brains.
MAN IN BLACK
You're that smart?
VIZZINI
Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
MAN IN BLACK
Yes.
VIZZINI
Morons.
MAN IN BLACK
Really? In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.

and:

VIZZINI
He didn't fall? Inconceivable!!
INIGO
(whirling on Vizzini)
You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

As always, if you love one liners from "A Princess Bride" click here.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Mirthful Me]

I agree that this has really become absurd. The insults to both grvet and I are uncalled for and unnecessary. If you would note, grvet and I have had no difficulties discussing this matter in an intelligent manner. It has been others bringing in the insults and negativity. Neither of us has been ignorant, preaching, or anything else we have been accused of. Grvet made inquires and observations based on his/her POV, and I tried to reply to them ain a helpful manner, directing said member towards self-education on the subject, rather than preaching my beliefs.

Good luck, grvet, in your research. Feel welcome to U2U me if you would like further discussion, as I will not be posting further in this thread. I do not feel that any more constructive conversation will be able to occur, because of the interference and animosity of others. As you are a new member, please don't let this discourage you from further posts here. While there will always be some who do not condone constructive conversation, not everyone is that way. Good luck!

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by saturnine_sweet]

very interesting links mirthfulme. I agree with you on the holes of evolution, something occurred to speed up the process. That something is totally up to speculation. I have a pet theory that it is possible there were several species of intelligent life, competed for resources and our primitive ancestor prevailed.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet The insults to both grvet and I are uncalled for and unnecessary.

If you categorize contrary opinions as insults, you're going to have a very difficult time here.

Originally posted by gvret evolution as a theory is widely accepted not because it is undisputed

The so-called "dispute" of evolution science is a twisting of the reality, first initiated by the "creation science" proponents, then proponents of "intelligent design". But at the code of these people who shout disagreement with evolution science is a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method, and how a science such as biologic evolution emerges and itself evolves. All science, all branches, are constantly bombarded with new information and challenges. This is because new information may or may not alter prior assumptions and conclusions. It hardly means that a science is wrong, it simply means that people are working to refine what is known and discover truths through relentless observation and testing. Creation science and intelligent design proponents observe one of these challenges and instead of taking it for the refinement it is, immediately assume that it changes everything. The science of evolution is not concerned with the cause of the process, only the observed effects of the process, and the hypothesis that can be drawn. Combining observed and tested truths into an accepted science. Now, we certainly could be observing the meddling of an outside influence as species evolve and branch into other species. While the data does not show this is happening, it doesn't show that it is not. However, as we've been discussing, the science of evolution is concerned with what is observed, not speculating on what might be because it is not observed. We'll leave science to the scientists, and theology to the theologians.

I would love to jump in here and debate against evolution but, so far, there has not been anything to debate. The thread has just diminished into a shouting match between those who think evolution is true and those that are against it.

God knows I want to debate this subject (its my favorite) but there are no real points to address right now just a bunch of long replies that basically say I'am right and your wrong.

Also I don't want anyone to be offended by this comment it is not directed at anyone in particular its just that the thread left the tracks and is headed for a dirt road.


[Edited on 28-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

I shouldn't, I shouldn't, I shouldn't post here, but WTH.

I was a practicing microbiologist for many years. The theory of evolution as it is presently stated rests on a few points.

i) Natural changes occur in the DNA of animals, which cause a change in the amino acid sequence of the encoded protein.

ii) Changes in protein sequnce can cause changes in the larger organisation of the organism.

iii) Some changes in the larger organisation of the organism cause it to be more "well-adapted" (this is a very vague term which means that the organism essentially produces more viable children, thus there are more "copies" of the organism in the biosphere).

iv) The word "species" is used as follows: If an animal type cannot produce viable children (children which can in turn produce children of their own) with another animal type, they are of different "species."

Historical evolutionism adds one more point.

v) All animal species (including human beings) presently existing are derived from the actions of the processes above on a single or very few common ancestors.

Simple. Now, how about these points? Point i), I have seen with my own eyes (which is why I explained earlier that I was a practicing microbiologist).

I have seen point ii) with my own eyes.

I have even seen point iii) with my own eyes.

I haven't seen iv) with my own eyes, because it deals with larger organisms only, not microbes (as microbes do not (generally) reproduce sexually). But it is simple to see a priori why point iv) is true (and please forgive my crudity in this explanation): let's say that genetic changes in an organism cause that organism to have a penis which curves in a clockwise corkscrew (it can happen!). That organism can now only practically have children with a female with the appropriate type of vagina. Here we see selection at work: if there is such a female, the two organisms can have children, and it is possible that those children will inherit the corkscrew trait... in which case, they will form their own group of interbreeding organisms separate from the original stock. In sufficient time, other natural changes in the species will cause them to be more and more different, until the time at which they appear to be "completely different animals." If you accept the first three points, the implications of the fourth are inevitable.

Now, what about point v)? Well, we can't see v) directly with our own eyes. However, several things stack in its favour. First, in order to reject v), we must assume that what happened in history is vastly different from what we see happening today. Second, strata indicate that certain species which currently exist did not in the past. Third, strata include some transitional animal forms. Forth, similarities in structure between quite different animal species indicate similar origins. As for the mechanics of mutation and selection, I don't know what they are. It is possible that you are right, Mirthful Me, and that the Deity (I am a Christian, by the way) interfered in the past. This seems insufficiently subtle for Him in my opinion, however. I think it is most likely that God made the rules of the universe to encourage intelligent life, then did not "interfere," because it was not necessary. Actually, my belief is even deeper than this, but I don't want to get into it further.

I will not make any further replies to this thread, period. I simply wanted to state clearly my views and experiences as a biologist, and will not reply to any further remarks here.

Originally posted by gvret
I have a pet theory that it is possible there were several species of intelligent life, competed for resources and our primitive ancestor prevailed.

It's believed or known that Neanderthal Man is not an ancester but a contemperary of our ancester. Neanderthal Man lost.