Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That one's largely regarded as a fake. A real Meddler skull would have eleven occiputs. Of course, it would only raise the question of how they acquired so many "perfect" quadri-dimensional eyes.

---

Gawd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

skysaw I don't know if you understand this with that dinosaur science internet summary of what you call sufficient evidence. But showing some pictures of different skulls doesn't give us a complete picture of how the skulls were once the human race and how they changed.

---

Which is why I posted links that discusses that very subject. I understand the pictures are hypnotic and pretty, and probably caused you to miss those links, but you still have an opportunity to go back and click on them if you wish.

You: "Any educated person atleast admits they don't have the fossil records..."

Me: "Here are some fossil records..."

You: "Those don't count. Blah, blah, blah..."

Nice defense.

Quote:

---

There is [sic] many stupid opinions from many silly people on the origins of those skulls and their implications.

---

Great! Then let's hear yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Skeletons don't evolve and change into different shapes without a very good reason [artifical interference].

---

This is a misleading implication and only demonstrates your ignorance of natural selection and evolution. Please review the nomeclature before jumping into something you do not know.

Quote:

---

That is the main problem you have to solve. That is what every living thing on earth that you can currently observe will show you. That fish, remain fish. Dogs remain dogs. Sharks and whales. Stay as sharks and whales. Birds remain birds.

---

I think that you will find evolution is fully compatible with what you are saying here. This, yet again, only reinforces your ignorance to evolution. Natural selection and evolution is not spontaneous or completely replaces previous ancestors. It is a residual and invariable process functioning on a stochastic system. Please review the material.

Quote:

---

Dogs don't start building airplanes and using cars because they evolved. Neither will cats or sheep. Neither will apples or oranges. Or little sea horses from the ocean.

---

That is exactly correct. You will find that evolution fully supports this. Domesticated animals have no evolutionary need to develop or build this things. They are fully fit and capable of living without these things. However, humans cannot. Without humans resourcefulness, the human race would quickly die.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, that is not always the case. Sometimes the offspring are infertile; sometimes they are fertile, such as coyotes and wolves, as one example. In the wild, occasionally individuals of closely related species hybridize (mule deer and white tails; closely related bird species), but the offspring are usually less fit and are not as successful as the pure-breds, which tends to keep the species seperate, but not always.

---

I think there are probably several definitions for species. I definitely learned in GCSE that two different species cannot produce fertile offspring, and according to Wikipedia, 'a species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring'.

Taxonomy is a really vague discipline anyway.

I find it amusing when people say that evolution is just a theory as if that disregards it. I mean after all gravity is a theory and so is the Earth circling the Sun, but people dont disregard them. There is so much evidence that corroborates the theories they might as well be facts and the same goes for evolution.

I think Science still calls them theories because there is still more to be learned thats all.

why would Haeckel fake embryo drawings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ohhhh, I get it. Just because some things are kinda tough to explain using science right now... that must imply that God exists! I feel sorry for those of you who cannot reason so logically.

---

Talk about an axe to grind. I never mentioned god in this discussion, I feel sorry for your logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Talk about an axe to grind. I never mentioned god in this discussion, I feel sorry for your logic.

---

You + dis.. cu.. ssion?

Does.Not.Compile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

mm, yeah, Im not always great at getting my point across. I think this is best fit in a question. Where do we start saying, in skeletons seeing as they are our main proof of evolution "ah that is evolution at work" or "ah that is just natural variation within the species"?

---

Oh, I see what you are saying. As we go thru time, there is gradual variation in the skeletal morphology, but how do we know if and when that variation is enough to call it a new species?

I think usually there is the opposite problem--because good and complete fossils are usually rare, large jumps in morphology are more common than a collection of skeletons that represent a smooth spectrum of change over time. This is the favorite false problem of the creationsists--the supposed lack of the "missing links", which is just due to gaps in the fossil record. You are really talking about the opposite problem.

I guess if we could find enough skeletons thru time to follow the generations, it might be hard to know where to draw the line and say, "OK, right here is where it becomes a new species". But I don't thinke that the skeletal record is that complete in most cases for it to be a problem. It is similar to the problem we have now sometimes with the variation of a species across a range. It's not really a "problem", other than that people like to classify things, and it's hard sometimes. I don't know much about plants, but I know that they are even harder to classify, because of hybridization, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I know that variation is part of evolution, but lets say we have a smaller Labrador that is not shaped very similar to a bigger Labrador. We know these are the same because we can look at them and test DNA and such things, but thousands of years from now, scientists pick up the bones and think these were different dogs produced from a common ancestor? I think that is plausible if the bones are too old to test DNA and things. How do we make sure those kinds of things dont happen so that people who criticize evolution cant point this out as a flaw with the fossil record?

---

There are other ways to date fossils; if they are all in one area--the layer of rock that they are found in can tell at least their relative age, if not their exact age, for example. Paleontologists have different ways of dating rocks and the fossils found with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I think there are probably several definitions for species. I definitely learned in GCSE that two different species cannot produce fertile offspring, and according to Wikipedia, 'a species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring'.

Taxonomy is a really vague discipline anyway.

---

It is more complicated than a single sentence. For that reason, those commonly used simple definitions don't always work.

I think everyone is confused about my beliefs and that is understandable. But what I am finding more difficult to tolerate is the speed at which O'nus and others want to define and pin down my exact understanding of this concept of evolution, and then replying in a teaching fashion as if I was on the level of. "oh I didn't know that, thanks for adding that one". No that is not what I'm thinking when I read your response. It's more along the lines of "interesting, get yourself together you misunderstand completely"

Anything should be possible. But, I do not have enough faith that we can magically change into humans from the species avaliable. I admit that may be my fault....I still respect other peoples faith that it is possible.
I only lack faith in the story because I've looked into it. And for me those skulls are not sufficient fossil evidence at all to convince me of anything.

And no, I am not hell bent on alien intevention either. But something must have happened. Impossible magic is difficult to believe there has to be some way to do it. Atleast I'm not blindly believing in something i can't yet understand and then bagging people who use the word god in their vocabulary and belief system.

Now either you believe science failed or humans are not smart enough all these years to figure it out. No, science hasn't failed. Science is only as good as the person using it. So certain people failed and the rest are hiding or covering it up. Now if you can't prove everything with science then you fail. So get used to the fact you don't know everything that means your back to square one and your no better than anyone else who has an equally magical theory you find silly. Get off your blind science lemming throne of sesame street logic. Stop looking down on people and admit your no better than religious morons that go along with what a book says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I think everyone is confused about my beliefs and that is understandable. But what I am finding more difficult to tolerate is the speed at which O'nus and others want to define and pin down my exact understanding of this concept of evolution, and then replying in a teaching fashion as if I was on the level of. "oh I didn't know that, thanks for adding that one". No that is not what I'm thinking when I read your response. It's more along the lines of "interesting, get yourself together you misunderstand completely"

---

I apologise if I have been patronizing. Edit: I am asking for your beliefs because you are not offering any alternatives; you are just pontificating blind scrutiny.

You must understand that many people get this very notion from you, right? You have preached scrutiny but provided little (if any) support. What reason does anyone have to believe what you say when it is analgous to saying "you're wrong" and that is it?

Quote:

---

Anything should be possible. But, I do not have enough faith that we can magically change into humans from the species avaliable. I admit that may be my fault....I still respect other peoples faith that it is possible.
I only lack faith in the story because I've looked into it. And for me those skulls are not sufficient fossil evidence at all to convince me of anything.

And no, I am not hell bent on alien intevention either. But something must have happened. Impossible magic is difficult to believe there has to be some way to do it. Atleast I'm not blindly believing in something i can't yet understand and then bagging people who use the word god in their vocabulary and belief system.

Now either you believe science failed or humans are not smart enough all these years to figure it out. No, science hasn't failed. Science is only as good as the person using it. So certain people failed and the rest are hiding or covering it up. Now if you can't prove everything with science then you fail. So get used to the fact you don't know everything that means your back to square one and your no better than anyone else who has an equally magical theory you find silly. Get off your blind science lemming throne of sesame street logic. Stop looking down on people and admit your no better than religious morons that go along with what a book says.

---

So, you are saying:
- evolution is wrong because of the scientists doing the work
- but science is right
- since science can't prove everything, it is wrong
- religious people are morons

So, now that we have a few contradictions, what are you saying that we ought to believe? You have yet again dodged asserting your beliefs or any support.

Any person can stand on top of a mountain and cast judgment down on people. It takes an intellectual to offer support and reason. (And vague dodgy responses are not support; they are vague and dodgy).

Which do you fall into?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Skeletons don't evolve and change into different shapes without a very good reason [artifical interference]. That is the main problem you have to solve. That is what every living thing on earth that you can currently observe will show you. That fish, remain fish. Dogs remain dogs. Sharks and whales. Stay as sharks and whales. Birds remain birds. Dogs don't start building airplanes and using cars because they evolved. Neither will cats or sheep. Neither will apples or oranges. Or little sea horses from the ocean.

---

It's clear now that you really understand natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Mystic, I challenge you to sum up the theory of evolution in two paragraphs or more without being a smartass. I bet you don't know enough about it to do that. ;)

---

Hello?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

why would Haeckel fake embryo drawings

---

Haeckel didn't fake them. The issue was that he supposedly exaggerated traits to increase similarities. Further research and modern technology shows that he was almost entirely correct. Humans DO have pharyngial gill slits in the womb. Haeckel's conjecture as to why they were there may have been wrong, but undeniably they DO exist. Further, human, fish, chicken and many, many other species' embryos are remarkably similar in early stages of development, not diverging until several stages into development.

Also, the most popular image attributed to Haeckel was actually drawn by Romanes. Haeckel had several hundred embryo drawings, and of them, only eight could be considered "fake". Haeckel explained these images: "[For embryos] in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge."

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

Quote:

---

What sets us apart from apes? At latest count, about four percent of our DNA.

Scientists announced Wednesday that they had completed analysis of the genome of a chimpanzee, humanity’s closest genetic relative, and found that the gap between humans and chimps is about 10 times smaller than the one between rats and mice.

---

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N35/chimpgene.html

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Keep in mind also that we are not descendents of monkeys and apes, we all evolved from the same original species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

I always feel like...somebody's watching me! :parapet:

He's giving L's eulogy -> :pope:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

stuff about pig's hearths :P

---

What, seriously? :o You can transplant a pig heart into a human successfully?? Is that true? *is too lazy to research this herself* In that case, why isn't everybody who's waiting for a heart just get a pig's one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them.

---

We are more closely related to apes than to monkeys, but we are extremely closely related to both. (Monkeys have tails. Apes do not.) The genetic overlap between humans and chimpanzees is 99%. What a coincidence. I hope O'nus can give more details on human/ape genetic overlap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

What, seriously? :o You can transplant a pig heart into a human successfully?? Is that true? *is too lazy to research this herself* In that case, why isn't everybody who's waiting for a heart just get a pig's one?

---

Not true, not yet anyways. Patients die within a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are wrong is so many ways that it's not even worth correcting. You really shouldn't try to explain things of which you have no knowledge whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L

O'nus may i ask you something? Do you work for the gouvernment? as a scientist ? or are you just a amateur and a pretender. Who is so upset that monkeys are our brothers in mother nature?

---

What..? Where does this keep coming from? I am not upset about anything, especially monkeys being a distant relative.

Quote:

---

For most of you guys, please take a look at our current Pigs. Our insides match 85% of the pigs insides. By that i mean, the hearth can be transplanted into a human from a pig, and it succesfully functions as a human hearth. As you see, the reason why monkey theory is out of the picture is because we dont have ani similarities nor matches with them. We cannot transplant a Monkeys hearth into a human being, since it does not function as our hearth does. Nor does the DNA match. Damn hell, we are eating pigs not knowing that they are like brothers to us ! LOL

---

Pardon?

Time to let the evidence speak for itself.

Quote:

---

Of the macaque's nearly 3 billion DNA base pairs, 93.5 per cent are identical to those in the human genome. This is not unexpected for a species whose lineage diverged from our own about 25 million years ago. The human and chimp genomes, which diverged just 6 million years ago, are about 98 per cent identical.

---

NewScientist - April 2007
http://www.newscientist.com/article....dId=life_rss20

Quote:

---

Analysis of Rhesus Monkey Genome Uncovers Genetic Differences With Humans, Chimps
DNA Comparison Provides New Clues to Primate Biology
An international consortium of researchers has published the genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey and aligned it with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Published April 13 in a special section of the journal Science, the analysis reveals that the three primate species share about 93 percent of their DNA, yet have some significant differences among their genes.

---

National Institutes of Health - April 2007
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2007/nhgri-12.htm

Human vs Chimpanzee Genome Comparison
http://www.wired.com/news/images/ful...himp_dna_f.jpg

Quote:

---

Old World monkeys (OWMs) represent one of the most closely related primate groups to humans....Similar to the human and chimpanzee genomes, roughly 50% of the rhesus macaque genome consists of various repetitive sequences ....Similar to the human genome, the rhesus macaque genome contains over half a million recognizable copies of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) and their nonautonomous derivatives....

---

Science Magazine - April 2007
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT

Quote:

---

Fig. 1. Phylogenetic tree of retroviruses based on full-length Pol proteins. Common infectious retroviruses and endogenous retroviruses, present in fish, birds, mammals (nonprimate), and primates, were included in the analysis. Color identifications for each group are shown in the upper right corner. Asterisks and circles show deep-rooted branches with >95 and >75% bootstrap values, respectively. The ERVs identified in this study that invaded the OWM genome horizontally (i.e., through external germline infection) are indicated with red letters. For all ERVs shown in blue letters, the original insertion occurred in the common ancestor of humans and rhesus macaques (i.e., vertically) and is present in both genomes. All ERVs indicated with blue letters also generated new insertions in the OWM lineage. The scale bar indicates 10% divergence in the amino acid sequence.

---

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...16_238_F1.jpeg

Science Magazine - April 2007
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../5822/238/FIG1

I hope this has been enlightening.

~

Thanks, O'nus. Very informative.

I saw a documentary about the social order of macaques on the Discovery Channel about ten years ago, and it was one of the most fascinating things I have ever seen. Their social order is so much like ours. It was like I was watching a documentary about human behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Thanks, O'nus. Very informative.

---

Thanks, I hope you mean that sincerely, lol.. Took me a little bit to find it from credible sources that are public.

I think that post can also be shown to demonstrate how we evolved, over time, from monkeys. Not literally evolved like Mystic should imply (mighty morphin power ranger style) but more gradual.

~

Here's something interesting, both about human ancestry and the interbreeding of species:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...d_after_split/