|
Post by firstborn on Jun 22, 2007 16:07:13 GMT -5
Las, this is evolution: if you use antibiotic to kill a germ like E.coli. you will kill most, if not all, of the germs. But not all germs are alike, some will die, but some will get sick because they are not quite as susceptible. These sick bacteria may survive, and pass on their genes to new generations. Give this generation a strong dose of penicillin and again you may kill most, but not all. Eventually, what you are doing, is weeding out those germs which can't cope with antibiotics. This is evolution. p.s. 24 hours is always 24 hours if the time is set by an outside standard, other than the rotation of the earth. That's called adaption Bert, not evolution
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 22, 2007 20:19:23 GMT -5
To Bert If we come from monkeys Bert how come we don't look like em? And.. if we evolved from them why are they still around.. ;D Bert where are you
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 22, 2007 20:23:03 GMT -5
We are waiting Bert
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2007 0:07:49 GMT -5
Hi Las, I don't know where I was, but I wasn't here ;D All life on earth is related, that is, whales are related to daffodils - if you are prepared to go far enough back in time. But... we "come from" the last previous species. And for us, that species may be Homo sapiens idaltu. Wish I could put a nice reconstruction of him on the page here! Look at a picture of him at www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/Modern_Human_Behaviour_Debate.htmlIdaltu is not much different to ourselves. Show a picture of him to people and they will think he is a modern Ethiopian. And, no, we don't come from monkeys. And, adaption IS evolution, ie you "change" when you "adapt" and evolution simply means change. Some bears adapted to cold climates with heavier bodies, more fat and white fur - they adapted so much to their climate they could no longer interbreed with temperate bears (sterile young, still births etc.) They then became "polar" bears, and we finally had a new bear rather than a sub-species or variant.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 23, 2007 2:23:19 GMT -5
Hi Las, I don't know where I was, but I wasn't here ;D All life on earth is related, that is, whales are related to daffodils - if you are prepared to go far enough back in time. But... we "come from" the last previous species. And for us, that species may be Homo sapiens idaltu. Wish I could put a nice reconstruction of him on the page here! Look at a picture of him at www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/Modern_Human_Behaviour_Debate.htmlIdaltu is not much different to ourselves. Show a picture of him to people and they will think he is a modern Ethiopian. And, no, we don't come from monkeys. And, adaption IS evolution, ie you "change" when you "adapt" and evolution simply means change. Some bears adapted to cold climates with heavier bodies, more fat and white fur - they adapted so much to their climate they could no longer interbreed with temperate bears (sterile young, still births etc.) They then became "polar" bears, and we finally had a new bear rather than a sub-species or variant. Bert, put the image URL between the following html commands (without the spaces between the letters 'img'): www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/Mod_H_The_Debate/images/Idaltunoback.jpg Note that the image URL is not the same as the web page URL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2007 3:07:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by las lookalike on Jun 23, 2007 8:26:39 GMT -5
this probably does look like Las
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 23, 2007 10:07:19 GMT -5
Hi Las, I don't know where I was, but I wasn't here ;D All life on earth is related, that is, whales are related to daffodils - if you are prepared to go far enough back in time. But... we "come from" the last previous species. And for us, that species may be Homo sapiens idaltu. Wish I could put a nice reconstruction of him on the page here! Look at a picture of him at www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/Modern_Human_Behaviour_Debate.htmlIdaltu is not much different to ourselves. Show a picture of him to people and they will think he is a modern Ethiopian. And, no, we don't come from monkeys. And, adaption IS evolution, ie you "change" when you "adapt" and evolution simply means change. Some bears adapted to cold climates with heavier bodies, more fat and white fur - they adapted so much to their climate they could no longer interbreed with temperate bears (sterile young, still births etc.) They then became "polar" bears, and we finally had a new bear rather than a sub-species or variant. Evolution is a big shame Bert
|
|
|
Post by tobert on Jun 23, 2007 12:50:47 GMT -5
[/img][/quote] Sure he is human. There are probably men that look like that (with a bit of body fat added) in every race.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 23, 2007 14:02:49 GMT -5
yes I believe in evolution
|
|
|
Post by I believe on Jun 23, 2007 14:32:03 GMT -5
I believe one of the greatest problems is with evolution is the lack of understanding most people have.
It is difficult to discuss the merits of evolution when people beliefe that if a new species evolves from an existing species that the initial species should no longer exist. (If man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?)
Others somehow equate evolution with the creation of the earth.
Many have no idea of what defines a species.
But the largest problem by far is the lack of understanding how long living forms have been evolving and the feeling that man is somehow the end product. We are just one species along the way. If we last even half as long as the dinosaurs then we might be able to say mas was a successful species.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2007 3:44:19 GMT -5
quote - "Sure he is human. There are probably men that look like that (with a bit of body fat added) in every race"
See how hard it gets? This sub-species of modern man had different proportions to us. He was actually quite large.Some people will tell you there are no "missing links" but this "link" is one which people were searching for, for quite a while. If you had a portrait of every human or not-so-human going back a million years you would be struggling to see the differences between thousands of generations - evolution, even when it operates so quickly as it has with humans, seems incredibly slow.
|
|
|
Post by Bump on Jun 24, 2007 7:21:53 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
|
Post by LLcol j on Jun 24, 2007 20:44:21 GMT -5
bump
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2007 21:43:39 GMT -5
Las, what you are saying is that this man didn't exist, essentially.
This putative ancestor of ours (reconstructed in the form of a modern Ethiopian) lived about 100,000 years ago. Another hominid, Homo Neanderthal, split off from our branch about half a million years ago. Work being carried out at the Max Plank institute in Germany and the 454 Laboratory in Connecticut, may lead to the eventual cloning of this man, as its DNA is being sequenced. Won't be any arguments then about whether such men existed.
|
|
|
Post by so thus on Jun 24, 2007 21:46:27 GMT -5
according to the conversation in this thread, bert has demonstrated his belief that adaption is evolution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2007 21:51:18 GMT -5
quote - "adaption is evolution" Yes, the two are one and the same. "Adapt" is to change, and change means to evolve. Some say that bears adapted to arctic environments with white coats, and some say God made bears with white coats. They are also one and the same.
|
|
|
Post by sorry bert on Jun 25, 2007 0:53:58 GMT -5
sorry bert, but your attempt to demonstrate your superior intellect has fallen well short on this one.
Yes, adaptation is part of the evolutionary process, but by itself it is not evolution.
bert, what is the highest level of biological science education that you have received?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2007 9:10:32 GMT -5
quote - sorry bert, but your attempt to demonstrate your superior intellect has fallen well short on this one. I don't have a "superior intellect."
quote - Yes, adaptation is part of the evolutionary process, but by itself it is not evolution. You contradicted yourself. ;D
quote - bert, what is the highest level of biological science education that you have received? Here in NSW that would be secondary - High School diploma. But .... when I was born there was no such thing as DNA, and in my High School no such thing as continental drift. But I like to keep up to date with science. Its fascinating. I am on-line reading Science Daily at this moment.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 25, 2007 10:28:57 GMT -5
I do not believe anything ever evolved..I believe in a creator designer
|
|
|
Post by to bert on Jun 25, 2007 17:09:59 GMT -5
bert, without DNA you couldn't have been born.
And adaptation by itself does not comprise the entirety of the evolutionary process.
Get over yourself.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jun 25, 2007 18:38:25 GMT -5
who is this "to bert" guy? Does he have anything at all to add, or does he simply want to ridicule anybody who knows more than he does?
|
|
|
Post by who indeed on Jun 25, 2007 19:18:34 GMT -5
who is this "diet coke" guy? Does he have anything at all to add, or does he simply want to ridicule anybody who knows more than he does?
|
|
|
Post by oh brother on Jun 25, 2007 20:56:21 GMT -5
bert, without DNA you couldn't have been born. And adaptation by itself does not comprise the entirety of the evolutionary process. Get over yourself. I dont think this is what bert meant about DNA I for one would be interested in knowing what other forces you think drive evolution If you log on with a name you can delete your own stupid posts
|
|
|
Post by First things first on Jun 25, 2007 22:31:56 GMT -5
If you log on with a name you can delete your own stupid posts First, one would have to know the posts are stupid. I think you are attributing more intelligence than is warranted.
|
|
|
Post by agreed on Jun 25, 2007 22:46:52 GMT -5
agreed.
bert doesn't recognize his own stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 25, 2007 23:28:51 GMT -5
agreed. bert doesn't recognize his own stupidity. After reading this thread, Burt does not top the list regarding stupidity. Evolution does not happen as a way to adapt but rather the changes that are produced by evolution continue to be developed if the changes provide greater chances of survival and, by existing, reproducing more organisms with the same trait. The bacteria that are immune to the effects of penicillin did not evolve to be able to survive penicillin. They did not adapt to be able to survive. Rather among the bacteria that were exposed to penicillin some had already evolved and were able to survive. Animals with longer necks had an advantage over ones with shorter necks. The giraffe is the extreme example. The elongated necks did not develop to allow eating from higher on the trees but rather those with longer necks has a better chance of surviving. Longer survival - more long necked offspring. Tall thin humans have a better chance of survival in tropic climates and shorter stouter ones have a better chance in arctic climates. I must agree that the biggest stumbling block to getting people to even think about evolution is overcoming the misinformation that organizations like the Creation Studies Institute, Institute for Creation Research, and their many affiliated organizations are publishing. Judging from the comments in this thread, the creationists are doing a much better job in spreading their disinformation than the scientists actually doing the work.
|
|
|
Post by Free Agent on Jun 26, 2007 0:05:05 GMT -5
According to the fossil record, there were many more species and variations of these species in the beginning than there are today. Even current species are in the early strata of fossil records and are unchanged. Species are on the decline, not incline - thus the panic over endangered species. This alone is total opposite of what you should find if evolution were to be true. According to evolution, what started as one simple life form, evolved into another etc... so the graph of species should be what looks like a tree extending into more branches/species at the top from one single trunk on the bottom. But to actually look at the fossil record, many more species are in the earliest layers of the fossil record, only to decrease in time. The decrease continues and the so called "tree of evolution" is in reality is uprooted and topsy turvy.
Geographical strata is a very poor way to determine the age of the earth. Much of the strata was formed at varying rates - some at a gradual rate, however, some very quickly at the times of huge flooding, transportation and deposition of earth/soil. Formation of geographical strata is not at a consistent rate. Many factors determine increase and decrease in the rate of geographical formation, such as water and wind forces, weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.... There are too many unseen factors to acurately determine rates of geographical strata, therefore, to use this method to date the age of the earth is faulty.
|
|