If evolution is not proven, why do we share 96% of our genetics with monkey?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well, bears and raccoons share a common ancestor. How come they are no advanced, humanoid species of them on Earth? Why did only US (us as "you and me", not us as "United States"
) have all that technology right now?
How come are we the ONLY specie on the whole Earth who is asking evolution questions right now?
edit on 6-6-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


Because we are the smartest.



Why?




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well, bears and raccoons share a common ancestor. How come they are no advanced, humanoid species of them on Earth? Why did only US (us as "you and me", not us as "United States"
) have all that technology right now?
How come are we the ONLY specie on the whole Earth who is asking evolution questions right now?


Because we are the smartest.


Why?


Science doesn't answer the why, it answers the How.


but intelligence is nevertheless a stage that we, and apparently only we, achieved.

Not true. Several of our hominid ancestors have had advanced intelligence. The use of tools goes back around 3 million years. Neanderthals had larger brains than us, and were probable of equal intelligence (based on body to brain ratio).



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Here the same old statements repeated over and over thread after thread.

If you REALLY want to know:

Evolution for Dummies Cheat Sheet

Start here.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow
Creation, nor Intelligent Design, are guesses, and we observe them everyday.

We observe god creating things every day or observe life being created from scratch every day? Whatever you're smoking, please pass it this way. We know humans are intelligent and create things, that isn't ID. ID is about the origin of life and doesn't pass the hypothesis stage of the scientific method.


Natural selection is a fallacy, and there is evidence of that, especially within the human race.

Explain how natural selection is a fallacy.
It has been observed in both nature and the lab. If you have a species of mouse where 80% are born with dark fir and 20% are born with brown fir, and the environment changes and becomes full of brown shrubbery, the brown mice will eventually dominate the gene pool, and the black will either die out or find a new environment that's more conducive to their survival. Proof right there. Human's greatest strength is their intelligence, and you see natural selection in action all the time. People do dumb things and get themselves killed. That is natural selection where the less intelligent die out. Granted, with humans it's not exactly the same as living in the wild, since many laws are implemented to protect the weak, but that doesn't mean evolution stopped or is not happening. If the environment doesn't change, the creature won't. Proof of that is sharks.


To suggest that mutation is a process because it happens with limited consitancy, is rediculous, and it further disproves natural selection.

Another statement not backed up by science or logic. Genetic mutation rate can be observed in every single creature on earth. You can't deny evolution without denying that genetic mutations are passed down from parent to offspring.

It's not about having an open mind, it's separating fact from guesswork. Evolution has mountains of evidence behind it, creationism does not. Logically, we all know what that means.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Here the same old statements repeated over and over thread after thread.

If you REALLY want to know:

Evolution for Dummies Cheat Sheet

Start here.


Yeah, it's gotten to the point where creationists are just repeating themselves, despite all the evidence that goes against their silly claims about evolution. I must have repeated that stuff like 20 times already. Good cheat sheet. All creationists should go there before spouting ignorance.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Here the same old statements repeated over and over thread after thread.

If you REALLY want to know:

Evolution for Dummies Cheat Sheet

Start here.


Yeah, it's gotten to the point where creationists are just repeating themselves, despite all the evidence that goes against their silly claims about evolution. I must have repeated that stuff like 20 times already. Good cheat sheet. All creationists should go there before spouting ignorance.


They will, and they will try to use this 'new' information as proof AGAINST evolution somehow. That, to me, seems to be what they do. We teach them, and then they use our own tools against us. They fail, but they sure do try time and time again.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


Exactly.
How does evolution explain blond hair? How does it explain the delicate bright colours of the butterfly's wings? How does it explain why we walk instead of all jump like kangaroos?
A star for you.


Science can actually explain all that...read up on it



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Well, as I am no creationist, I believe I am not aimed by that last, insensitive comment.
Evolution may play a part of achieving high intelligence.
But try explaining the Anthropic Principle.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I read up on it. And their explanations are just as far-fetch as are creationist's explications.
I have been in science since 10 years. I studied physics and chaos theory. I tell you, something is not right here.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I read up on it. And their explanations are just as far-fetch as are creationist's explications.
I have been in science since 10 years. I studied physics and chaos theory. I tell you, something is not right here.


Then I implore you to avoid all modern medicines and most foodstuffs.
They are all based on far-fetched knowledge also.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
 


Well, as I am no creationist, I believe I am not aimed by that last, insensitive comment.
Evolution may play a part of achieving high intelligence.
But try explaining the Anthropic Principle.


Philosophy is not science. My statement was not insensitive, as creationists have been posting ignorance in this section for a loooooonnng time. It's a simple fact. There is no logical argument against evolution. It's all misunderstandings purposely fed to fundamentalists who are emotionally invested in their faith (and usually insane). Most creationists are rational people, but most of the ones that post in this section are not. It's time for religious people, creationists and interventionists to stop attacking evolution. It has nothing to do with anyone's faith, it's science. God is perfectly compatible with evolution, just as intervention is. Accept the science, don't dismiss it without even reading the stuff instead of ignoring anything that goes against what you were force fed as a child.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
We are the 4%

But seriously - show me the physical link between humans and apes and we can get this over with. If not, then quit acting like you know the answer. It is still debatable and probably will stay that way for a very long time. At least until someone engineers a skeleton and claims that the species was the exact medium between primate and homosapien.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myollinir
We are the 4%

But seriously - show me the physical link between humans and apes and we can get this over with. If not, then quit acting like you know the answer. It is still debatable and probably will stay that way for a very long time. At least until someone engineers a skeleton and claims that the species was the exact medium between primate and homosapien.


We are all primates.

Go here Read carefully

Happy now?
edit on 6-6-2012 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I read up on it. And their explanations are just as far-fetch as are creationist's explications.
I have been in science since 10 years. I studied physics and chaos theory. I tell you, something is not right here.


Given the gross misunderstanding of evolution you've shown through your posts I strongly doubt that



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myollinir
We are the 4%

But seriously - show me the physical link between humans and apes and we can get this over with. If not, then quit acting like you know the answer. It is still debatable and probably will stay that way for a very long time. At least until someone engineers a skeleton and claims that the species was the exact medium between primate and homosapien.


The fossil record fully backs it up, DNA fully backs it up, migratory trends fully back it up...and of course we're actively applying the theory in modern medicine to accurately predict future outcomes. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't do that.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


And this is from where? Some dude's website that he updates out of his mother's basement? Thanks for giving me the sub-wikipedia-quality website link, but this doesn't really validate any argument you're trying to support. Now just because scientists see similar gene matching from primates to human beings doesn't mean that it is THE CLEAR ANSWER that we are apes. We ARE similar yes, you can see it even visually, but we have no direct link.

I can look at clouds, see rain, look at marshmallows, and make the conclusion that marshmallows came from clouds because they seem similar in their make up. I might even go into detail and conduct DNA tests on them and prove that 97% of the genes in a cloud are also in a marshmallow - but does that mean that the marshmallow comes from the cloud?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

thanks for your time
edit on 6-6-2012 by Myollinir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I was reading the debate, and i felt that you still haven't answered Swan's question: how come we are the only one truly advanced specie on Earth. Even the most advanced ape can't do what we achieved till now. It only took us 12 000 years to go from an cave human to a flourishing and highly evolved specie, while we took 450 000 to go from an unconscious monkey to a semi-human, capable of minimal speech and only fire. Even dolphins can't do what we do. It is not religious to think that we were modified; it is logical if we compare everything.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by Noncompatible
 



I can look at clouds, see rain, look at marshmallows, and make the conclusion that marshmallows came from clouds because they seem similar in their make up. I might even go into detail and conduct DNA tests on them and proove that 97% of the genes in a cloud are also in a marshmallow - but does that mean that the marshmallow comes from the cloud?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

thanks for your time



Great comparison. Thank you for this. a star.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


And theories are constantly being changed and proven wrong. This is just like religion, except religion doesn't overwrite itself, as the answers are just ambiguous and hint-ful enough to follow for a lifetime.

So what fossil shows me the path where monkey lead to man? Lucy? What a joke. I just saw another article from science daily claiming they found another species of intelligent ape in Australia or wherever the hell the smart apes come from, but that still is just simply A SMART APE. Put a smart ape in the same room as a smart human and see who gets more done with a day's progress.

DNA 96percentally backs up that we are primates (is the title of this thread) - and how does that prove that we come from apes? Because you assume you can take the 4% gap and bow yourself infront of the crowd as if that is the entire truth.

It is dangerous to travel down the road of assumption so pompously. I'd personally like to see where research brings us to what reality is, but most of the research is still in the theoretical realm and therefore is not entirely the truth, but simply what we are sort-of understanding. A theory is still just a set of tested hypothesis, and not a truth set before man.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by swan001
 





Well, didn't the theory of evolution states that we evolved from monkeys?


No, it doesn't.




Believe me, I don't think creationism is the answer. I believe that someone (aliens??) decided to kick the things up and added something to existing monkeys to create us.


1) We didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with them.
2) What's our objective evidence for your claims?


But the "common ancestor just happened to look more like a monkey than a man. So it's really just semantics. A lot of us grew up seeing the chart in our science classes called from "Ape to Man" or something like that. It clearly showed man evolving from a monkey like creature. So whether is is called a monkey or a "common ancestor, it is all the same.
Google "From Ape to Man" and you will see what I mean.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join