OF APE OR MEN

whats your theory on the origin of life and the evidence to back it up?

Peace

I don't go to mythical places with strange men.

-- Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.

Dr.Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.”

Evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found

Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…".

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:

“ "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979). ”

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:

“ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:

“ Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils....I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

If all of such noted scientists even noted evolutionists understand the difficulty of proving evolution to be a fact

who am i or gypsy or adey to say that evolution is afact.

Pls read

No,

Natural mutation is common

what ur talking about is the natural action of survival

I never said mutation is always harmful

Can we recreate it?

No NATURAL Mutation is common

people develop resistance to poisons and diseases very commonly

That doesnt lead to a new species

you remember ur fossil theories

well

Currently, there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums.

If the theory of evolution was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".

Darwin himself admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."

Further he said

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."

Not true Shauabakazi, we are also witnessing beneficial mutations, For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People who had this mutation were able to survive infection thus its frequency in the population increased. It could also explain why this mutation is not found in Africa where the bubonic plague never reached

You can read more here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

There is little consensus among scientists about how macroevolution is said to have happened as can be seen below:

“ When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,"

“ "“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007”

And this is for you Mr. Adey

Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:

“ Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case....

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre Grasse - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977)

to further explain what you have said let me add in lay mans term

Mutations are generally assumed to be materials of evolution.

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles are created.

But this seems paradoxical because most mutations that we observe are harmful (e.g., many missense mutations) or, at best, neutral, for example:

"silent" mutations encoding the same amino acid many mutations in noncoding DNA (e.g. "junk" DNA).

most mutations affect a single protein product (or a small set of related proteins produced by alternative splicing of a single gene transcript) while much evolutionary change involves myriad structural and functional changes in the phenotype.

So how can the small changes in genes caused by mutations, especially single-base substitutions ("point mutations"), lead to the large changes that distinguish one species from another?

These questions have, as yet, only tentative answers

And you might have begun by saying that evolution is a fact but as you have just said

Scientists use 'theories' to plug these gaps based on what we know to be true

Remind u again theories

that all i am saying

Thanks Adey! I didn't have time to research all that yesterday. However I think you're banging your head against a wall if you think you're going to change anyones opinions.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

No hard feelings at all bud...I love discussing things with other people, even if we disagree...its not personal.

Coz todays apes and humans came from a common ancestor, we are not descended from todays apes. Really, you do need to read some science literature before you post this all too common mis-information.

I don't go to mythical places with strange men.

-- Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.

than why are monekys still in the jungle. why didnt they become human beings?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

I don't go to mythical places with strange men.

-- Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.

Bacteria, single-cell pathogens, have one huge advantage in the evolutionary game. While it takes the average human about 25 years to reproduce, bacteria can do it in minutes. So a chance change, which gives a bacterium just a tiny advantage, can rapidly spread.

The classic example of this is antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics exert enormous selective pressures. If, by chance, a mutant appears that can tolerate an antibiotic, it is at a huge advantage.

Now, because of our lax use of antibiotics, resistant microbes are a big problem. Use of antibiotics when they are not needed (e.g. for viral infections) and in agriculture (they are widely used as animal growth promoters), and a tendency for people not to stick to dosages prescribed, creates a situation where low levels of drug exist. Partially resistant bacteria have a survival advantage and spread. Now, MRSA, multidrug-resistant TB and other drug-resistant bacteria are a major threat worldwide.

Hijacking the cell

Viruses, tiny particles that infect and take over a cell, also have numbers on their side. A single infected cell can spew out millions of new virus particles. Once again it is diversity that underpins their success. In most organisms, heritable material such as DNA is copied extremely carefully. In many viruses, though, genome copying is extraordinarily haphazard. But with millions of copies produced in each cell, plenty will be fine – and among the millions of 'defective' ones there may be some promoting drug resistance.

This is one reason why HIV is so dangerous and flu is so difficult to treat. They are moving targets: no sooner has the immune system learned to recognise one form than it has changed into something else.

Mixing pots

Virus genomes can also swap bits of their genome with one another. This may create defective viruses, but occasionally something with brand new powers can arise. This is probably how the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 began. An avian flu virus mixed with a human flu virus, possibly in a pig (pigs can be infected by both avian and human strains of flu). This new virus could infect and be spread between people, and was lethal.

This could happen again, with avian flu strain H5N1. Currently, this strain can be spread from birds to people but not between people. But if it swaps genes with another virus and becomes transmissible between people, the potential for a global pandemic is very real.

I don't go to mythical places with strange men.

-- Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.

Ok here goes:

evolution is a fact, it can be observed, studied and 'quantified' at the micro level eg the mutation of virus's into stronger strains as they evolve to counter anti-biotics.

Where you are confused, I think, is because you have heard that Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is only a theory; in this respect you are right, HOWEVER this theory has been observed to be mostly true and has been built upon by observable FACTS over the last 150 years as new discoveries are observed and measured.

In short then:

Evolution is proven fact and where our knowledge is lacking we use 'theories' to plug these gaps based on what we know to be true.

Peace

I don't go to mythical places with strange men.

-- Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.

Hey gypsy i forgot to mention that the real life scenario should be quantifiable too.

As i recollect scientists on either side dont live so long as to prove their case.

by the way ur the one who supports evolution why dont u stick around for so long hehe For me this lifetime couldnt be any more longer than it already is

I made a funny ;)

neway ur thread about marriage is much more interesting than this one

lets focus our attention on ur thread.

Lets kill this one

Actually if anyone is interested in the idea of God at work through Evolution they should read "The Panda's Thumb" or any other books by Stephen J. Gould.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

"If the whole thing can then be recreated in real life scenario it becomes a fact."

Evolution is being recreated all the time. It's an ongoing process. Unfortunatly it's also a very slow process, so you have to stick around a couple thousand years to see evidence of it.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

By the way i got what i needed

just wanted to get a consensus on what the people believed in

and it seems most of QL believes in evolution

Damn! iam always the odd one out.

Hey ragna if u still out there man

nothing personal alright!

Take care

Gypsy dear when you give any evidence to support you r theory does that change that theory in to a fact.

Let me show you how it is done

An analogy is used to understand a related occurence

for which a hypothesis is developed to undertsand the occurence

After which a theory is developed to try to recreate the unexplained or unidentified occurence

If the whole thing can then be recreated in real life scenario it becomes a fact.

With all the genome projects in the world we cant recreate evolution in a controlled environement

hence the theory remains a theory and cant be called a fact

do u understand now

that is the reason why i can hold my view

because just like your sided theories are based on a hypothesis

there are other theories which have their own hypothesis

I'm calling my ancestors aomebas and rats too, I don't see any shame in drawing a link between myself and something 600 billion years old. I think it's kind of neat to see how life on this planet has evolved.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

All that I have mentioned is EVIDENCE that supports the THEORY. What I've said about DNA and remains of pre-humans and mammels is fact, it has been found, documented and put on display in museums, go look. This stuff supports and goes a long way to proving the theory of Evolution.

Please provide me with evidence that supports the theory of creationism, and don't say the Bible, the Torah or the Quran. I want scientific evidence.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

Theres no need to call a dialogue bickering

i think u r taking all this very personal

Its fine with me if you want to call ur ancestors as monkeys

i just find it a bit farfetched

all that you have mentioned gypsy

what do you call it?

Answer theory

when you call a theory evidence you destroy the whole idea of a rational mind

As I have just said all life on the planet stems from the same source, and has evolved from there. All your bickering about DNA percentages proves my point that evolution most certainly does exist.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

gypsy you have to be kidding now

your gonna decide as per the percentage who is going to be our ancestor and who our fellow planeteer

i think since you have studied biology will u kindly explain what are deciphered genome responsible for in our body

and what percent of the total ape dna has been deciphered

The single celled organisms are the basis for all life on earth, from which everything stemmed, and evolved from. So if you want to call some ameoba Adam and Eve, you're more then welcome.

Anyway rats and humans do have a common ancestor. The rat like mammels that survied from the Jurassic period are the common ancestors to all mammels. Modern day humans and chimps can be traced to a common chimp-like ancestor that existed some 3 million years ago. Humans went off on one evolutionary path that included Australophetcus Amanesis, Australophetcus Afraensis, Australophetcus Boeisi, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Neanderthal (or Homo Sapien) and the current Homo Sapien Sapien, apes on another, which includes Gorillas.

Monkeys are a close common ancestor as well, but they fell off the evolutionary train and went on their own before the great apes.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

Well I mean 99% difference and 60% difference is the difference between having a common ancestor and sharing a common planet.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

Ok gypsy tell me what about the 85% found in rats

and the 99% which you mention only are the traces of DNA responsible for protein usage in our bodies

The human genome hasnt been completely deciphered as of date

so you can forget about the chimps and other animals

And I can t understand why we have to begin from the monkeys

dont you get it, the first living organisms were single celled organisms

even if you follow evolution the trace shouldnt start at monkeys

it should start from these single celled organisms who would be rightly called as our ancestors.

that's always been the way I satisfied my brain and heart...we might not know the basis for it..but it did get created in the beginning...its the rest of it that become foggy due to human thoughts..

Meh I just like to argue. The funny thing is that the theory of evolution does not disprove God (in fact I think it makes it more obvious that there is a divine creator) it simply disproves what the religious books have taught us. ;)

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

some folks that fit all those percentages...

they have a chimp brain, chicken legs, rat's attitude and a whale's body..so..therefore evolution exists...

Sorry to say this is just wasted effort.

There's a HELL of a lot more evidence to support evolution then there is creationism (as there is NO evidence to support creationism). So I think I'll follow the one that I have seen evidence of.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

Ok, if you've ever actually studied DNA and biology, you would realize the dramatic difference between 60% sharing of DNA and 99% sharing of DNA. Simply looking at the differences and similarities between a man and chimpanzee is dramatic proof that we evolved from a similar ancestor.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

i just want to say unlessa theory has been falsified it neither is afact nor a lie.

it is what it is a theory

creationism has not been nullified, its just that no one can prove its authenticity

likewise Evolution is a theory, and i believe Gypsy it is not upto u or me to declare it as afact.

We alraedy have been over that issue

chimps = 96% - 99%

Rats = 85%

Chicken = 60%

Whales = 40%

now tell me if we just consider the chimps what about our uncle rat and chicken aunts.

Ragna i dont know where adam and eve fit in

science believes in facts and there is no factual evidence to suggest that

that is the reason i said its a theory too.

But every species no matter if it evolved started somewhere

so why cant it be possible that if we are better versions of our ancestors, then the beginning was from adam and eve

About plytheistic religions, let me tell you is very much alive in many of the major religions of the world.

I have a link for you, download this movie

http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=324ac5a

you can use my linkcard

email: [email protected]

Pin:323e2f

gene that some still have explain a lot about some of the guys' behavior at the Qube in another thread on here..

Actually there are speices of Chimpanzee that we share 99% of DNA with. Not to mention all the fossil evidence showing our gradual evolution. (For instance in Portugal they are finding that Cro Magnon man (Homo Sapien Sapien, or us) mated with Neanderthal and produced offspring, and that they lived at the same time, therefore there are still people who have Neanderthal genes. Fascinating isn't it.

Not only that we are witnessing the evolution of many speices even now, it's almost ridiculous to call evolution a theory anymore.

Creationism has been disproven all but completely as nothing more then a myth. You show me the garden of Eden and some factual DNA evidence that proves we all come from the same man and woman, and I might start to believe it.

"I fight with love and I laugh with rage, you have to live light enough to see the humor and long enough to see some change." Ani Difranco

Look keep the facts straight it is not the teacher academic grade we are talking about it is evoloution. We were taught to believe in Adam and Eve and the her was a he.

You just don't get it do you these are comment with not base to them. It bores me.

no one can prove anything..its all up to each person to believe as he/she wants to believe..I just lean towards evolution because there is quite a bit more proof...but also love the theory of creation...

and yep ragna..I know about the one viewpoint..commented on that simply because I'm not familiar with other religion's theory of creation..

Your teacher propably didnt hold a PHD in microbiology

and when it comesadam and eve, it is a theory too

i am sorry to say but your teacher cannot prove her case that this theory is false. no mattar how smart she is

But their gradual change into the species we are today tells you nothing?

Besides, recorded human history only goes back about 7000 years, and the major monotheistic religions of today less than 3000.

So where do humans fit into all this?

Why is the Adam and Eve story MORE credible in your opinion?

And what about all the older (now defunct) plytheistic religions creations myths? why were those discarded when at one time almost everyone believed in them? What does THAT tell you?

Stay safe all.

Perfection does not exist. The question therefore, is: what level of imperfection are we willing to settle for?

Ragna you just answered your question right there see

"Whereas all the different cultures have their creation "myths" since the dawn of time because we all know humans fear what they do not know, so even if they have to make stuff up, they want to have answers!"

Scientists when they propose a theory it is according to the leading science of this age, that doesnt necessarily prove it to be true.

for all we know they are making things up according to the best information they have.

i mean why do those fossils have to be related to us, they could be just like dinosaurs, an extinct species.

But you are working on the assumption that there is a GOD who worked for 6 days to create the world....science is not working on the same assumptions.

Still....you gotta love the way Kids can think outside the box =)

Stay safe all.

Perfection does not exist. The question therefore, is: what level of imperfection are we willing to settle for?

At the age of 11 I had my first lessons in science and physics and the teacher flappergasted us ull by telling us the forget the origniators of man being Adam and Eve as this just wasn't true. A small catholic girl who had believed in this all of her few year on earth my life ideas shattered in one hour lol.

too many factors that lean towards proving it for me not to believe in it. Its hard to dispute the dinosaurs...and the changes in the skeletal structures in homosapiens throughout history.

I do, think though that there is a happy medium between the two...as per my young son's comment one morning on the way to church...

Hubby and I were discussing evolution vs creationism...and from the back seat comes this little voice of a 4 year old..."but mommy, nobody knows how LONG God's days were..." which is very true...a day could have been several thousand years...

Fossil evidence suggest we decended from those ape like men....we evolved and changed in appearance to our current forms....they weren't just another animal that shared the planet with us....otherwise there would be fossils of us in our current form too....THAT is what the evolution theory is based on....NOT the fact that we share DNA with animals.

Also, humans evolved as the dominant life form on the planet due to 2 main factors....high brain power AND opposable thumbs....no other animal was so lucky....they either have One (like Dolphins with the brain power) OR the other (like monkeys with opposable thumbs)....but we are the only ones to have BOTH!

Whereas all the different cultures have their creation "myths" since the dawn of time because we all know humans fear what they do not know, so even if they have to make stuff up, they want to have answers!

Stay safe all.

Perfection does not exist. The question therefore, is: what level of imperfection are we willing to settle for?

Good one

i know quite a few of those

some would even put chickens to shame

Good one

i know quite a few of those

some would even put chickens to shame

if you tell me that two different animals share so much of their DNA and are still called different animals

then why cant it be possible for a man to be a man and an Ape to be an Ape no matter how similar he looks to a human

And intelligence and social behaviour is not an indication that those fossilized apes were our relatives

why? because Dolphins on an average have an higher IQ than humans

and Social behaviour similar to ours can be seen throughout the animal kingdom, even in birds infact.

This is blasphemy dear, and there are people known to have chicken brains........

its not surprising that all life that developed on the same planet share similar building blocks....the compelling evidence is the fossils that show the earlier forms of man....why do you ignore those completely?

Stay safe.

Perfection does not exist. The question therefore, is: what level of imperfection are we willing to settle for?

and scientific theories do change over time as more discoveries are made. Still, I feel there is more proof to support the theory of evolution than the genesis creation myths.

Then again, that's just my opinion....believe whatever works for you....but don't try and force others to believe like you.

Stay safe all.

Perfection does not exist. The question therefore, is: what level of imperfection are we willing to settle for?

Like what can you give me an example

Nowadays proponents of the Evolution theory propose that the Human genome is identical to that of an ape by 96%

But did you know that our DNA is similar to many mammals

for example a rat's DNA is similar to that of a human by 80 - 85%

or for that matter a chicken's DNA is similar to ours by more than 60%

If i were to follow the theory of Evolution my ancestors would be part Ape, part rat, part chicken and part god knows what

I myself disagree I think there is enough information to proove eveloution.

Scientists can make theories

that doesnt mean they are true

by the way there are enuf no. of scientists who are against the theory of evolution too.

Place your bets and take your sides

You are leaning far out of the window with that statement I can think of millions of scientists who would disagree with you and most probably a great many people here on QL.