Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Yeah, right. It completely skips over G flat. Just another example of the holes in the evolution scale.

So which one of those skulls gave birth to that last skull? I don't see how scientists could know that if they weren't there to watch it the day it happened.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So which one of those skulls gave birth to that last skull?

As far as I know, skulls don't give birth at all. But if you're talking about M vs. N they are both Homo Sapiens, just separated by 30,000 years. I had no idea anyone disputed the fact that Homo Sapiens came from Homo Sapiens. Your desperate search for a flaw only exposes your own.

I don't see how scientists could know that if they weren't there to watch it the day it happened.

Again, "I don't see how" is not a very convincing argument. Learn a little about anthropology and it'll become clear to you.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Btw O'nus. Wise choice of the medical symbol. But I am yet to figure out the purpose of it from you. You probally don't even realize the full meaning or history of the symbol you just put it there because it looks good or you felt like it because unconsiously you know it's effect.

Nice try, dumbass.

Caduceus or the staff of Aesculapius (the God of medicine, or revered as one depending on where you come from).

There are two version, this one and the one without the wings. The one without the wings is the staff of Aesculapius and the one with wings is the staff of Mercury (typically). However, many other people think it could be a merchant symbol or the sign of buddha underneath (I can't remember the name of the tree). The snakes representing a human travel, and the wings representing transcendence.

Other people think it can represent the cross of Jesus with the same interpretation as above.

The staff of aseculapius came from how he used to get a snake/worm infection out of the wounded with sticks by twining them out of wounds. Furthermore, there was a tale that he had seduced a snake that would bite people and actually cure them and that is why he carries it around with him all the time.

Aesculapius was known for his Aesculapaeons where he would give dream interpretations and baths.

The staff of mercury (the one in my avatar) is not on ambulances because it represents the travel of death and people thought it would be ironic if people were taken off by a vehicle that represented "death".

But hey, nice way to completely dodge every single thing. You are getting completely desparate now.

Next you'll just accuse me of wikipedia'ing this whole thing up or some other pathetic attempt at an insult to make up for your incompetent capacity to conjur up a substantial and intellectual point. Or, you can incorporate something I say and rebute it sarcastically (ie. "incoporate scmorporate, o'nus!").

You are the reason condoms were made.

~

Originally Posted by skysaw

As far as I know, skulls don't give birth at all. But if you're talking about M vs. N they are both Homo Sapiens, just separated by 30,000 years. I had no idea anyone disputed the fact that Homo Sapiens came from Homo Sapiens. Your desperate search for a flaw only exposes your own.

Again, "I don't see how" is not a very convincing argument. Learn a little about anthropology and it'll become clear to you.

That's right. Skulls don't give birth to other skulls. Homo sapiens don't give birth to homo sapiens either. Only storks give birth to humans. So there goes the theory of evolution.

heh, skysaw, I think you were baited in to both mark and univeral mind's sarcasm. they both do support evolution, so just smile and laugh

on a serious note, I realize there is a great degree of variation between animals of the same species, so when we only have bones, where do we draw the line between variation and an actual new species? Teeth? Im mean, only in terms of species that are very similar, not between a dog and a cat Im not being sarcastic, just wondering because I havnt heard much on this.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

on a serious note, I realize there is a great degree of variation between animals of the same species, so when we only have bones, where do we draw the line between variation and an actual new species? Teeth? Im mean, only in terms of species that are very similar, not between a dog and a cat Im not being sarcastic, just wondering because I havnt heard much on this.

The lines between species is arbitrary even with living animals. The common definition is that populations that normally breed together in the wild are considered a species, but this can cause trouble when an type of animal exists over a large range and there is a spectrum which varies quite a bit on the ends, such as the zebra, and many others.

So to answer your question, it's probably pretty arbitrary with fossils too, especially since you have change over time and not just area.

I'm pretty sure that two different species cannot mate to produce fertile offspring. That would serve as one defintion.

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. There is many stupid opinions from many silly people on the origins of those skulls and their implications. A closer look will tell you that, there is far more questions than you would like to admit. You just want everything on a platter and whenever anyone presents something that suits you. You will take it from the silver platter provided because your too lazy to go and use your own mind. Still, there is no clear answers as to how such a thing could have progressed naturally. Those skulls are evidence against the theory not for it! You can make up a story as to how you want it to be. You can line the skulls up and say, we evolved from this skull to that skull. But you need to have a bit more understanding before you can jump to conclusions about how skulls changed shape in what fashion from what period. Anyone can look up a bunch of known skulls that someone else sorted out on a platter for you.

moonbeam- This may be true, but in so aspects we need to show species producing new offspring to show evolution as an explination for the diversity...so I think being able to show these skeletons as seperate species should be essential.

xei- yeah, thats how I learned it for living things...but it is kind of hard to tell that from skeletons.

thanks both of you for replies

It's been a long while. So monkeys and apes should be turning into humans. We should be able to document a change. But they seem to have the same shape skull all the time with no change.....So how did these skulls magically start changing and not only these skulls, where the hell did they come from and why did they change, and where is the rest of the bones....I don't see this insane transformation happening in any other living thing on the earth. This is just cherry picking different extinct hominids and putting them together hoping it will make sense. It's funny but it's not science.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm pretty sure that two different species cannot mate to produce fertile offspring. That would serve as one defintion.

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.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

moonbeam- This may be true, but in so aspects we need to show species producing new offspring to show evolution as an explination for the diversity...so I think being able to show these skeletons as seperate species should be essential.

I don't get what you are saying. It's easy to show skeletons from species that aren't closely related to be different species. But just like with living animals, it may get harder if the skeletons are more similar, especially over time, as they evolve. I don't see the problem, just because the definition of "species" is a human description, and somewhat arbitrary.

But just like with living animals, it may get harder if the skeletons are more similar, especially over time, as they evolve. I don't see the problem

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.

So just because we have a common ancestor, apes should take the same evolutionary path as us?

Firstly apes are not our ancestor's. Second, that's exactly why they still exist and are not living as human. Why would they still be present the same as they always were? It's suppose to be common logic. Apes are apes. Just because they also have a face doesn't mean you were once them. How dull are you to suggest everyone was apes and look at us now....wow, what happened. I Don't think so. We are completely different.

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't get what you are saying. It's easy to show skeletons from species that aren't closely related to be different species. But just like with living animals, it may get harder if the skeletons are more similar, especially over time, as they evolve. I don't see the problem, just because the definition of "species" is a human description, and somewhat arbitrary.

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"?

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?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It's been a long while. So monkeys and apes should be turning into humans. We should be able to document a change. But they seem to have the same shape skull all the time with no change.....So how did these skulls magically start changing and not only these skulls, where the hell did they come from and why did they change, and where is the rest of the bones....I don't see this insane transformation happening in any other living thing on the earth. This is just cherry picking different extinct hominids and putting them together hoping it will make sense. It's funny but it's not science.

Those neanderthall evolutionary scientists were not taking notes like they should have been.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Firstly apes are not our ancestor's. Second, that's exactly why they still exist and are not living as human. Why would they still be present the same as they always were? It's suppose to be common logic. Apes are apes. Just because they also have a face doesn't mean you were once them. How dull are you to suggest everyone was apes and look at us now....wow, what happened. I Don't think so. We are completely different.

Okay, humans did NOT evolve from chimpanzees. We did NOT evolve from gorillas. We evolved from apes, but those apes were NOT the apes of today. All apes evolved, but that doesn't mean they all became humans. Evolution is adaptation to suit the environment--we developed intelligence to react to an environment, but that isn't the only successful trait. We are no more "evolved" than a chimp--just different. The only measure of success in evolution is survival and reproduction. And chimps are still alive, and still makin' babies, so they are just as "evolved" as you are. They may not be as intelligent, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

In fact, overall, you have NO idea what evolution is, do you? Like I said earlier: WILLFULLY IGNORANT. You do not know what evolution is, and do not care to find out. And thus this is YOUR problem, not ours.

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.

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.

The funny thing is Mystic7 has claimed himself that he's not even religious, so I ask, what is his theory of origins?

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.

I think M7 is going more for alien interference.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I think M7 is going more for alien interference.

They forgot to put the alien skull in Skysaw's picture.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They forgot to put the alien skull in Skysaw's picture.

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.