Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

4,760 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 15 years ago by whattowhere

Do you accept as fact that you are descended from apes or do you reject that theory?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next (showing 76-100 of 101)

Bottom Last Post

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 11/16/07 - 12:57:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/16/2007 9:11:05 AM kitnner wrote:
I'm not sure- I havn't done enough research. Apperently, there were advanced human civilizations on earth hundreds of thousands of years ago... so it must have been at least that long ago. But I would think much longer. Or it might have been an ongoing process spanning millions of years.

How exactly did they influence the genetic patterns of all of the humans who were our ancestors? They'd have to have been unimaginably lucky to have picked a given most-recent-common-ancestor (because who that would be is massively contingent on unpredictable events), so realistically they'd have had to genetically modify entire populations. How would this be done?

Secondly, why "apparently," when there's no evidence for their existence?

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 11/16/07 - 1:07:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
why would I care eithr way, I worry about today, tommorrow.....who cares.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 11/16/07 - 2:24:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/16/2007 9:26:01 AM AndresH wrote:
Thousands of years ago, sure. Hundreds of thousands of years ago...not so much. The earliest 'advanced' human civilizations were around 10.000 years ago. And by advanced, I mean they had agriculture, basic masonry and perhaps bronze working. (not so much bronze working 10.000 years ago either)

Kittner is referring to the books that I mentioned earlier on the page, or something very similar. I suspect she's referring to the ancient civilizations of Atlantis and Lemuria. As far as I know, the strongest evidence for their existence lies in the pyramids and the sphynx, which some scientists have claimed to be at least 20,000 years old or more based on their water erosion and that the stones were cut and placed so perfectly that replicating them would be nearly impossible, even with today's technology....
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 11/16/07 - 2:32:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
The sides of the pyramid are lined up almost exactly with the cardinal points of the compass. The accuracy of this alignment is extraordinary...

The original perimeter of the pyramid equals exactly one-half minute of latitude at the equator, indicating that its builders measured the earth with extreme precision and recorded this information in the dimensions of the structure. Altogether these measurements show that the builders knew the exact dimensions of the planet as precisely as they have been recently determined by satellite surveys.

The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others. Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.

link

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 11/16/07 - 2:59:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
Naw, that's just crap about the pyramids.

We see the evolution of the biggest pyramids, from little 'one-storey' pyramids, up to the huge ones, in a clear progression. And sure, they maybe knew some cool numbers, as did the greeks and romans, but with some creative reading, they can be read as having known a lot more.

You don't actually think there were super advanced ancient civilizations that are now gone?

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 11/16/07 - 3:28:57 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't know, there are some very interesting facts about the pyramids that make it very hard to believe that they were built with the kinds of primitive tools that the ancient Egyptians were known to have. What I posted above is only a taste of how impossible it would have been for them to build the Great Pyramid with primitive technology (or even modern technology). The evolution of pyramids that you're talking about does not include the Great Pyramid, it stands out from all the rest.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 11/16/07 - 6:28:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
Nope it doesn't really, at least not in any serious way.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 3:18:56 PM EST (GMT-5)
We cannot deny fossils, but a few bone fragments bound with a lot of conjecture doesnt make a good theory. Microevolution is proven fact, the problem is when people want to use microevolution to suggest macroevolution as fact. In a million years, Darwins Finches will still be little birds.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 3:54:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
Can you please explain to me the difference between micro and macroevolution? Because its been a stumbling block for me for years.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 3:57:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
Macroevolution is where a snake gives birth to a monkey, or some such thing, as evolutionists claim all the time.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 4:15:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'm just glad we got people here smart enough to know that dawrin did not propose we came from apes.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 4:33:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/18/2007 3:57:40 PM blicero wrote:
Macroevolution is where a snake gives birth to a monkey, or some such thing, as evolutionists claim all the time.

No it's not, you idiot.

Macroevolution is when one species, over millions of years, evolves into another species. The little bits of microevolution build up and eventually change a population so much that it can't be considered the original species.

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 9:26:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
I whole-heartedly reject it, as well as the theory of the common ancestor. There is no evidence nor example of a common ancestor. And not just that, but what caused all of the "common ancestors to die out?" Many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). There's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 9:35:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
OMG I can't believe how many idiots there are in this thread.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 9:35:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/18/2007 4:33:10 PM psychoman364 wrote:
On 11/18/2007 3:57:40 PM blicero wrote: Macroevolution is where a snake gives birth to a monkey, or some such thing, as evolutionists claim all the time. No it's not, you idiot. Macroevolution is when one species, over millions of years, evolves into another species. The little bits of microevolution build up and eventually change a population so much that it can't be considered the original species.

Micro vs. Macro, or small vs. large changes distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite “macro” changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off.

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 9:41:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
What the hell are you talking about?

The doubling of a piece of DNA information (and thus lengthening of the strand) is one of the more common mutations.

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Sunday 11/18/07 - 10:43:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
Gee, this question was so eloquent.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 5:47:12 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/18/2007 9:35:31 PM ApostleT wrote:
... That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true.

You can very easily see an increase of information in the field of bacterial bio-degradation of anthropogenic compounds.
14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 7:46:53 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/18/2007 9:26:34 PM ApostleT wrote:
There is no evidence nor example of a common ancestor.

Out of curiosity, how do you explain endogenous retroviral elements that are common to different species' genomes exactly, and only, as predicted by common descent?

On 11/18/2007 9:26:34 PM ApostleT wrote:
There's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

Nor anything that requires them to survive. So what's your point?

And, as pointed out already, you conveniently gloss over the various types of well-observed mutation that increase the physical size of the genetic material involved.

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 9:08:32 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/18/2007 9:35:31 PM ApostleT wrote:
Macroevolution is when one species, over millions of years, evolves into another species. The little bits of microevolution build up and eventually change a population so much that it can't be considered the original species. Micro vs. Macro, or small vs. large changes distract from the key issue of information.

Is it just me, or did you first define macroevolution as a series of small changes, and then say that macroevolution is really larg changes while microevolution is small changes?

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 9:08:50 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/18/2007 9:35:31 PM ApostleT wrote:
That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information... We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true.

By your own definition, 'macro' is a large change. If we saw an addition of genetic information, wouldn't that necessarilly constitute a macroevolutionary event? You might consider looking into polyploidization as an excellent, and quite frequent, example of exactly what you're claiming does not exist.

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 9:11:30 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/18/2007 9:35:31 PM ApostleT wrote:Conversely, we do observe quite “macro” changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off.

According to your definition, though, these are still just 'micro' changes as their relatively small.. if I'm understanding you correctly.

Even so, what of it? It still sounds a whole lot like descent with modification... errr.. evolution to me.

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 1:35:02 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 11/19/2007 9:08:32 AM catchall wrote:
On 11/18/2007 9:35:31 PM ApostleT wrote: Macroevolution is when one species, over millions of years, evolves into another species. The little bits of microevolution build up and eventually change a population so much that it can't be considered the original species. Micro vs. Macro, or small vs. large changes distract from the key issue of information.

Is it just me, or did you first define macroevolution as a series of small changes, and then say that macroevolution is really larg changes while microevolution is small changes?

An example:

Addition is relativly small changes. 1+1=2

Multipulcation is those small changes many, many times over. 1 x 98,720,483,751,203,971,792,835 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+ ...... 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+ ...... 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+ ......... 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+ ..... 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 3:01:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
Wanderer, if I read your analogy correctly, there is no qualitative difference between micro and macro evolution, its just a matter of scale?

I don't think that's what tApostle is claiming (but to be perfectly fair to him, its awfully hard to tell based on his somewhat muddled thinking).

14 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/19/07 - 3:49:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
Makes more sense than some invisible thing poofing us here.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next (showing 76-100 of 101)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 What does your money do?

2 If you had a genetic disease, would you reproduce?

3 Should the clock have been shifted 6 hours when it was designed, so that dawn occurs at approximately 12:00 and each hour corresponds to an hour of daylight?

4 Have you ever seen an Aurora?

5 Do people become more likeable once they`ve realized their faults?

6 Do you live in a home that has been owned by your family for multiple generations?

7 Would you volunteer to be hypnotized on TV?

8 Have you sent a postcard into PostSecret?

9 Does your favourite movie pass the Bechdel test?

10 Is it fair that this woman got away with purposefully miscarrying her two babies?

More Questions
 
Edit