Ummm, k.

Yes, I don't believe in neither, evolution or creationism. I'm not saying they're not the truth. I just don't believe it is. I'm not allowed to have my own opinion? If we'll ever get 100% proof of why we are here, whatever it is, I'm fine with it. NO ONE knows why we are here. We can only speculate. My theories aren't any more right than yours or anyone elses. I really don't get why you sound so pissy about this. I'm not claiming I'm right. Never did. There is some evidence for evolution, so hey, I might be wrong and it really exists.

There are theories which I believe in. It has the same stories which the bible and many scientists have told. Explained in a different way. If you care, check out The Terra Papers. Those might sound retarded to you, but it's still worth checking out. And no, I'm not saying The Terra Papers are telling the truth either. But it's still an interesting read.

__________________

Even though it's not mathematically or logically impossible, I find it a bit hard to swallow that 100% random mutations turned into..well.. some of the very complex systems that are some of our organs.

Yes, over billions of years, enough genetic selectivness is going to turn into..something.

But look at eyes. Even a primitive eye needs different sensory cells, nerves to transmit the sensory input, a *functional* nervous system that actualy can make any sense of the input and interpret it in a meaningfull way,
An iris and lenses for focus, a eyeball shape, a fluid to support the shape that is also clear enough for light to penetrate, and so on.

It all ties in *perfectly*.
Just remeber that any complex organ is not a single random mutation, but hunderts if not thousands of different mutations, where for a lot it means that a single "failed" mutation means it's a evelutionary dead end.

As I said, it's too complex, too tied in to be feasable as unguided adaptivenes.
Sure, adaptation has the proof all around us. But there is a difference between changeing a organ a bit, and actualy getting that organ out from, well, nothing or something comepletly else.

I couldn't say it's god, or aliens, or gaia, or some bio-gestalt self-manivesting whatever thingy.

I'm not saying that there is no such thing as evolution. I'm just saying that it's not a 'dumb' process.

__________________

^ Very well put.

When you look at the world, it's really hard to believe that one day, everything was just a tiny little microbe. Not saying it's impossible.

I've also understood, that when we evolve, our previous "phase" disappears. I can't see monkeys disappearing any time soon. Of course that part might be false, but there's isn't any earlier phases of any other animals around either.

P.S. I don't wan't some random attacking again. If you know better, please share it.

__________________

Thanks



Yeah, it is a bit mind boggling.
It's mostly an educated guess and some induction.
Even so, no one was there at that time, and there isn't realy much in the way of fossil evidence.

It's mostly a "we don't realy know, but this seems to be the most likely explanation".

Even though I can't realy say either, I would think that everything starting from a single microbe sounds a lot likelier then animals simply popping into existance. Not that there neccesarily needs to be a god for that.
Getting everything out of a single cell sounds a lot more subtle and divine then just creating stuff.





I do think that is a bit over simplified and misinformed though.
I don't think any Biologist will ever say that.

From what I know about Darwinian Evolution, it's that species diverge into different species. So it's mostly that monkeys don't dissapear because humans appeared, but that one species of monkey changed into two different ones. Human monkeys and other monkeys.

Kinda like.. if I saw a table in two, the table didn't dissapear. It changed into two different halves.

Also, some 'phases' would die out when the new variety is much better addapted to the enviroment while the 'parent' isn't.

At least, that is my understanding of the mechanics of it.

__________________

I'm not being pissy. You had ridiculous points and I called you out on it.



You're telling me this statement does not say they're not true? That in YOUR opinion they're not true? I never said you can't have your opinion, but your opinion is rash and assumes way too much. Why would a suggested read sound retarded to me? I give you my opinion on being openminded and you assume i'm closed minded? That doesn't make any sense at all. If you're unable to have somebody post their opinion on your hastily formed two cent opinions then you probably shouldn't POST ON A FORUM. I'm sorry man but I have opinions too. If you can't accept that then you have no right defending that YOU have opinions either.


Brains: Thats an intresting point i hadn't though of. The eye is a common thing people use to explain the thought of intelligent design. There is more to the evolution theory than 100% random mutations. Sure mutations are mentioned quite a bit, but physical traits being passed on to youth is much more a key component.

There are massive gaps in evolution, and those who theorize it know this. Hopefully there is nobody that does research in this field that is dumb enough to think that there aren't...

__________________

Why not? Because you don't feel like it? Everything on this planet evolved from single celled organisms, and it's fairly obvious for anyone who dares to sift through the many different fields of biology. I would refer you to simple cell biology and chase that with a dose of the endosymbiotic origin of organelles to help you appreciate and understand how all this works.



Name some. Don't be afraid to poke some holes in the theory.



There are not animals that have been exactly the same for 4 million years. There are many animals whose appearance hasn't changed greatly, but it has changed some. More importantly, their genetics has changed a lot, even if it doesn't look like it. It's also important to note that some organisms evolve more slowly than others, and this has been extensively studied and we understand quite well why that is. The different paces at which different organisms evolve is not a hole (nor dent, scratch, or speck) in evolutionary theory.



So you do believe in creationism, then?

It's pretty obvious to me that you don't believe in either because creationism as presented is so outdated and obviously wrong to anyone willing to think for themselves and because biology is too complicated and you've given up on yourself. If you are really interested in any of this stuff, including our origin, don't give up on yourself. The answer is right there for those willing to work for it.

__________________

I don't know i'm willing to go so far to say the answer is THERE. There is alot of evidence that leads to this. The closest to animals being the same is crocs and a few other animals. But even those aren't EXACTLY the same as they were.

__________________

Evolution is just a theory. It hasn't been proven in any way. There are still animals from the times of the dinosaurs. (Thylacine, (althoug, hunt to extinct about 70 years ago) Coelacanth and even sharks and Crocodiles) Sure they've gone a bit smaller, but is that considered as evolution too? There's missing links. Enough holes? Evolution might exist, but I don't believe humans have evolved. So, till it's proved, I don't believe it. Fair enough?

tmfreak: Ugh, ok. Just forget about what I said and read The Terra Papers. I'll give you a link if you wan't. Or make a tldr version.

__________________

There is some intresting shit here and there..

did you know that in the womb, we had tails and gills?
did you also know that the water in the womb is about as salty as the oceans were supposed to be, around the time it is figgured sea animals crawled out of the water?

__________________

Look to the sphenodontid third eye for an excellent example of imperfection leading to evolutionary dead ends. It may even still serve some complex, non-essential, tertiary process, but it didn't make it to any other extant reptile.



No, complex organs start out as single cells that come to symbiotic relationship with other cells, eventually mutating and, after millions of years, diversify and grow. This isn't nearly as stunning to believe as some make it out to be; our very own mitochondria has it's own DNA, which is remarkably close to that of proteobacteria. This shows that our organelles and cells had their own ancestors, unless you reject the validity of genetic relationships. Note that your ancestors can be easily traced where their DNA is available.



It may be complex, but it isn't perfect. The human eye is strongly imperfect. Humans are, indeed, very imperfectly designed creatures. Our skin is incredibly weak compared to almost all other animals; we bleed very easily and are prone to infection. The human vagina is situated too close to anus, inevitably leading to infections throughout a female human's life. Female pelvis is too small, leading to birth problems. Our larynx is too low, leading to common choking problems that other primates don't have to deal with. If we are part of some intelligent design, clearly we are the prototype.



It sure does. The fact that you know that leads me to wonder why you seek to challenge it.



Organs didn't come from nowhere, and they didn't come from something completely different unless you trace it back to it's original cell ancestors billions of years ago. I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that cells could evolve into an organ over the course of 3.5 billion years when half of Europe and North America (including where I live) were under giant sheets of ice only 18,000 years ago. Why would the Earth be able to undertake such a massive change over such a short period of time while cells are completely unable to join together in a symbiotic relationship, grow, and evolve together?



All the evidence we have overwhelmingly suggests that is a 'dumb' process; complexities of a flawed eyeball notwithstanding. We don't even need to look any further than our species. Why would an intelligent creator have designed the human ear with muscles? Unless it's simply a dumb, evolutionary leftover or deadend, then it must serve some functional purpose. How about the human appendix? Why do we have one? Why is there no negative impact for people who have theirs removed? Why do so many unfit species go extinct?

We see everyday organisms born with random, genetic mutations that leave that organism unfit for survival. Summarily, it doesn't survive. It doesn't breed. That 'dumb' process was a dead end. Why is it hard to believe that, over the coure of 3.5 billion years, innumerable such mutations have taken place? Considering that we can see this take place in the extant world on a daily basis, does that mean random genetic mutations is an extremely recent event? More likely, it evidences the lack of control behind evolution.

__________________

People get tied up by superficial, morphological characteristics that mean very little in the actual scheme of things. Firstly, the fact that there are 30 distinct species of crocodilians shows that there are distinct morphological differences (and in what way would they have come about?). Second, the fact that their morphology is similar to that of their ancient ancestors isn't surprising at all considering that their ecological role hasn't changed within that period.

Their genetic differences are even stronger, and it's important to remember that genetics are vastly more important than morphology when considering evolution and the relationships between animals. It's also interesting to note that, in between, many groups of crocodilians branched away from the groups we are currently familiar with, with varying levels of success. The morphology of those crocodilians (see extinct terrestrial crocodilians) drastically differed from that of their near relatives. Morphology is mostly a function of ecological role; genetics are a function of descent, and therefore, more relevant.

We can also point to hundreds (if not thousands) of different prehistoric creatures that shared many familiar morphological traits with crocodilians but are not closely related to that group (see mosasaurs, ambulocetids, etc.); in all cases, these animals occupied similar ecological roles as crocodilians do today.

__________________

Yes, now we are "cooking with fire."

Animals in general have decreased in size over the last 300 million years. So i would say yes, any change could be considered part of evolution. Infact i'd say it would have to be part of evolution.

So if you dont' believe in the evolution of humans, what are your opinions on the continual change in bone structure leading from apes to man? I mean we've all seen the walking ape turning into a man set of pictures. Were each one of these something completely different? In the sense that they existed but then died off and this other very similar species continued and then died off while another similar to the latter rather than the former continued on?

It is definitely possible they're not as related chronologically/together as we believe but it seems highly unlikely, and i think the evidence is pretty overwhelming to say they are.

Chris: Adding on to your statement. Look at the theorized evolution of a section of dinosaurs into modern birds. Its not like one day there were those dinosaurs then the next there were birds. Modern day birds share similar bones unique to "birds" and those dinosaurs alone. Coincidence? Doubtful. But plausable.

__________________

There is no debate among biologists over whether or not evolution happened.



Yes, of course an animal getting smaller is evolution. You are also allowing yourself to be tricked by morphological similarities. The Coelocanth species that persist to this day are NOT the Coelocanth species that existed in prehistoric times. Even when animals look similar to previous forms, the genetics are strongly different. In fact, the species of coelocanth that exist today represent a distinct genus from those in the fossil record; in fact, we are MUCH more closely related to chimpanzees than extant coelocanth are to their known ancestors.

A quick look at the history of the crocodyliformes and Thylacinidae would quickly dispel the misinformed idea that these creatures haven't changed over the millions of years. Even if they hadn't, different organisms evolve at a much different pace.



Yeah. That tends to happen over the course of 3.5 billion years of life and constant changes in climate, geography, geology, and hydrology. Notwithstanding, we still discover such missing links regularly. Who knows how many are lost permanently? We can still accurately predict that they existed.



If humans didn't evolve, why are there so many other species of man? Why is our DNA so close to that of chimpanzees? If you want "missing links", how about Homo ergaster? Homo erectus?

Homo neandertalis?
Homo habilis?
Homo floresiensis?
Homo caprensis?
Homo antecessor?
Homo heidelbergensis?
Homo rhodesiensis?
Paranthropus robustus?
Paranthropus boisei?
Paranthropus aethiopicus?
Kenyanthropus rudolfensis?
Australopithecus afarensis?
Australopithecus africanus?
Australopithecus gahri?
Australopithecus bahrelghazali?
Australopithecus anamensis?
Kenyanthropus platyops?
Ardipithecus ramidus?
Ardipithecus kadabba?
Orrorin tugensis?
Sahelanthropus tchadensis?

There are plenty of found links to those willing to look around a little bit. Every single one of these animals is either a stepping stone to what we are today or a closely related dead end. I have plenty more if you are curious where the ancestors to our closest living relatives (Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo) are rooted.

To close, humans aren't special and do not occupy some special place separate from the rest of the animals. If you can accept that both a box turtle and a kangaroo rat are animals, then it must be accepted that we are also animals. And if it can be accepted that both box turtles and kangaroo rats came about via evolution, it must also be accepted that we did also.

__________________

I think your last set of deducations is slightly faulty. Your comparisons don't have any bearing on humans. If A = B, C doesn't neccesarily equal either ones. I don't think just because you compare those 2 completely different animals to us neccesarily makes us animals. One would have to define what is an animal and decide whether or not we fit the bill. I personal think that we are. Although our ability to comprehend on the level that can, and all other forms of life aren't very close. (sure there are smart and intelligent animals that display some human traits) But i mean its not like there is a 2nd class of humans out there that aren't as intelligent. Unless there was and they died off.. ha

I'd like your take on the thought of intelligent design. That through a gods hands and through of an intelligent and capable being is it not possible that all these processes are part of a creationism plan? Just as much as there is no evidence to prove the existance of god or intelligent design there is just as little disprove of it. Its again, one of those things you can't neccesarily deny, because we can't conduct and experiment to see whether or not we weren't part of an elaborate "plan."

Along the same lines of thinking as your last statements its intresting how self centered we are. And how we think that we are so special in terms of everything. Even if we attempt to "deny" those thoughts, they still are inherent in our being. Its probably as a result of being in a society of intellects. Maybe its a safety instinct to make sure that we are so special that we should be preserved over all else?

__________________

wooooooooooooow, I aint gonna touch this with a fifty foot pole man. I've figured out my truth through hallucinogenic experiments and I advise y'all to do the same

__________________

I would say animals in general have decreased in size since the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous around 65mya. At the beginning of the Mesozoic, animals were large, but only about as large as animals are today. The largest mosasaurs, carnosaurs, coelurosaurs, plesiosaurs, sauropods, hadrosaurs, ankylosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, pterosaurs, and crocodilians all lived during the late Cretaceous period.



It's also interesting that genetic testing now proves that the closest living relative to birds are crocodilians (and vice versa), therefore confirming that birds are rooted within the archosauria. Unless you don't believe in DNA, RNA, and amino acid sequences, of course.

__________________

Edit: ^ There's also a study which claims that Velociraptors had feathers.

If changing your size and all that other stuff is considered evolution, then fine, I stand corrected.

As a random fact. Actually a huge majority of our DNA can't be explained. If I remember correctly, only 10% of our DNA can be explained.

I believe we are created by some other race not from Earth. Sounds retarded? Yeah, probably, but it's not impossible either.

__________________

It would. Here's why. A, B, and C are all organisms. B and C are more closely related to each other than to A. Therefore, if A and B comprise a true group, then C MUST also be part of that group based on genetic relationship. Otherwise, A and B would comprise a paraphyletic (and therefore invalid) group. This group of course IS animals, although these three animals also are part of several more inclusive monophyletic groups (Chordata, Vertebrata, Tetrapoda, Amniota).



Exactly correct. There were many species of man and proto-human apes that experienced an evolutionary progression in height, arm shortening, leg lengthening, brain size, and intelligence. Look to the list of names in my last post in this thread, which lists most (not all) of the species we've discovered so far. The most recent was Homo neanderthalis, and was much like us in regards to size and intelligence. In fact, their brains were slightly larger than ours. Neither of us had really mastered abstract thought at that point (we existed alongside them), but if they were still around today and capable of abstract thought, they may have been somewhat smarter than we are today.



Not yet. Until then, such matters don't really have a place in scientific discussion, and certainly shouldn't be spread as fact (which, unfortunately, they are).



It's only too bad this powerful arrogance has prevented our species from improving intellectually for so long; blocking out true answers, inhibiting our ability to think for and challenge ourselves. This arrogance is at the root of the greatest lie, and that's amazing to me.

__________________

Velociraptors (and hundreds of other dinosaurs) almost certainly had feathers, but it's closer to 95% than 100% certainty. There are only a few dinosaurs that we know as a fact had feathers; it can be safely assumed that their sister taxa had feathers as well, after that it gets trickier. The most interesting thing is that a some of the dinosaurs proven to have had feathers are not closely related to each other; this is strong evidence that a larger number of feathered dinos existed than previously thought.



There is a large amount of "junk DNA" whose purpose is understood anywhere from poorly to not at all.

__________________

Wasn't it just recently that they discovered how different parts of our bodies can contain different DNA. Or did they already know this, but ignored it in the court rooms...?

If thats how you decide to define "animal." You're arguing that something is an animal just because it's a living object and has a somewhat similar genetic makeup. If thats purely what you mean when you say the word "animal" then ok. I don't think myself, nor others in general would say the same.

You have a valid arguement for sure, but I wouldn't go so far to call it sound until a definition is brought to light where it specifically states (in some sort of form) about "animals" being living objects part of a group with a certain genetic makeup all of which your 3 objects are included. And every other clause those 3 being apart of.

I'm arguing semantics a little bit, but if the definition includes something that distinguishes A and B from C (such as intelligence) then it would be incorrect. I'm not so ready to bite onto your argument quite yet. Mostly because I wonder what the reason is that (at least it seems) most people dont' really consider themselves "animals." I'd assume there has to be a clause on intelligence in there.

__________________

I mean animal in the strictest sense possible- the Metazoa. The nature of genetic relationships between different animals (including us) is exactly the same (on a larger scale) as our genetic relationships between each other. Genetically, you, your siblings, and parents can be readily identified as each other's closest living relatives. Next would be your cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. We regularly use this to determine paternity (and other relationships) as well as in criminal cases. The same way it can identify your siblings and parents, it can accurately identify sister and parent taxa to animals. It has proven much of what we had predicted for decades, and has rearranged previously erroneous ideas as well.



Intelligence has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what an organism is or should be classified as. From a biological standpoint, my statement is correct; genetic relationships are the way these groups are organized. An analogous comparison within the field of biology would be for me to say that if you and a chimpanzee are both primates, then I must be a primate as well, as you and I are more closely related than either of us are to the chimpanzee.

It's also correct from a logical perspective; as an analogous example, if a calculator and a television are both electronics, that precludes that my computer monitor must also be an electronic, based on the fact that it is nearer the TV than either are to the calculator.

__________________

I understand what you're saying in the first part, and makes sense. I'm probably NOT looking at this from a purely biology standpoint. Thats why i said the definition of animal needs to be defined before we can argue the original point.

What if humans could be considered outside of animals, and animals + humans make up another thing above them. Using your case, animals and humans are something else. Lets say "Living Creatures."

I'm not saying i neccesarily believe all of the argument that i'm presenting but i think its a worth while argument. People in general do not consider humans animals. Why is this? This is the fundamental question for me. There has to be a distinction in their mind as to why they are not part of humans. Although similar and maybe under the same overall "genre" but still different. And thats where i used intelligence. Where i should replace the word intelligence with something more like abstract reasoning capabilities. Where we aren't animals because we have a brain/mental distinction from every other species of "creatures."

We are the only creature that has the ability to pass on knowledge from one generation to the next, building and creating upon what was thought of before. There are no creatures that we know of that do this. (or at least on this level)

I could be looking at this entire thing on a micro scale when it should probably be zoomed out a bit, but I think you're under crediting the difference of humans and the rest of every single animal that has ever existed.

Although i must admit i personally believe we think we are the center of some sort of plan and we're the bestest and greatest ever when we're just another product of evolution and we're no more of "worth" than say, the ant.

__________________

A unhealthy combination of arrogance and ignorance.



The capability of abstract thought would be an unnatural and arbitrary way to categorize; it would be equally arbitrary to state that goldfish aren't truly animals because they are capable of seeing in both infrared and ultraviolet spectrums and no true animals do, or that giraffes aren't truly animals because they are born with horns and no true animals are. Many animals have something spectacular that sets them apart from all other animals, and they are still animals.

Humans are rooted deeply within Primates; we can't be taken out. All evidence (morphological, paleontological, and genetic) prove that phylogenetic relationship to be accuruate. Similarly, the Primates are deeply rooted within the Mammalia and can't be taken out. The Mammalia are rooted within the Amniota, within the Tetrapoda, within the Vertebrata, within the Chordata, within the Metazoa. Metazoa = animals. From neither a biological nor logical standpoint would it fit to remove one of those animals based on arbitrary characteristics.

__________________

I wouldn't necessarily call it arbitrary but thats me. Good arguments.

So i have a question. Why is there only one set of evolved man? If there were so many types before us does it not seem a little ridiculous that all of them except for the one (us) were unsuccesful? The various models of man aren't hte primates of today, so doesn't it seem kind of odd that there is only one that made it? Maybe not, thats always a possibility...

__________________

Ever seen an ape?

__________________

That wasn't what i was really representing with my question.

I'm refering to another 2 foot upright creature thats similar but not humans.

I'm curious, could one say the different races of human beings as such? There were blacks first. There was no whites or other races, and then now we have so many different races. They say that black people have the most physical traits possible due to them being around for so long and such a long time in reproduction by comparison to other races.

__________________

I swore to myself that I wouldn't post in this stupid thread...

No, it does not seem ridiculous at all that we survived and the others didn't. That's exactly how evolution works. Its surprising any early hominid made, because we're pretty fragile relative to the rest of the world. We're slow, can't climb, are weak, weekend sense of smell, etc. Apes are pretty well suited to take on nature as they've got all of the above and them some. Considering that, it isn't surprising all of the others wiped out.


My advice to you is to stop arguing about something you know little about, take a Physical Anthropology class or any class the focuses on human evolution and then start asking questions. You'll save yourself a lot of time. And us.

__________________

Dude ok you're absolutely fucking stupid. I'm not attempting to argue a point but ask questions and pose ideas. If you're too stupid to tell the difference or so unwilling to answer them without being an asshole then don't fucking read my posts.

If you're not willing to conduct the conversation then don't post about it. Nobody has to fucking respond to my terribly uninformed ideas on something that is not nearly as concrete as you're making it seem to be. There are more than enough holes in the theory to discuss them.

You also act like I have no idea about evolution. I've been a fucking geology major for awhile now. You know we kinda have to taken classes on these kind of topics.. You know paleontology... Earth through life and time.. biology... chemistry.. Sorry i've wasted your time reading my posts and thoughts, Jackass. Jesus christ.

__________________

Absolutely fucking stupid? Damn, calm down. Some one is Mr. Sensitive! Don't take your butt-lust out on me.

Your "ideas" or "questions" would be answered in Evolution 101 so I assumed that you just didn't know much about it. Its kind of scary that they either didn't cover the fundamentals or you're just not paying attention.

And "argument" doesn't have to mean screaming and yelling like your parents did at you (don't worry - I still love you).

Like here, when you said to Chris:



Was he screaming at you? No. He provided evidence on where you're wrong.

__________________

Oh snap!

__________________

They weren't necessarily unsuccessful because they no longer exist. Homo neandertalis persisted for about 450,000 years as a species, and we've only been around for 250,000 years and not looking to extend those years much longer. Homo erectus lasted more than 1 million years as a species, and I strongly doubt we'll make it that long unless saved by miraculous scientific breakthroughs by which we can transform the planet.



Not really. The races we recognize are superficial and mean little to nothing. They do represent minute evolutionary adaptation to different environments, but the races as currently recognized don't really show any meaningful relationships. Humans are represented by a wide variety of arbitrarily recognized races; Europeans and Samoans share more identical DNA than African groups do from one another. There is a wider spectrum of phenotypic and genotypic variation among African groups than there are between all other groups on this planet; it's not that hard to imagine, since humans originated there. Non-African humans are not only more recently diverged, but also passed through a severe population bottleneck, seriously impacting genetic variability.

That being said, even the differences between African groups or between one African group and the non-African group are quite small compared to the differences between populations of other species; chimpanzees, for example, exhibit much greater genetic variability than humans overall.

As for your questions on the matter and curiosity in general, this paper can help more than I can. It's a 1MB acrobat file-

http://www.zshare.net/download/15684473d4fe7867/

It was supplemental material made available by my professor a couple of weeks before the human evolution exam; it was distributed mostly as a way to memorize significant timelines of extant and extinct Homininae.

More importantly, it covers quite well quetions about evolution among the hominids, and evolution in general. It's an quick read and isn't designed for college students, so it's easy for anyone to read.

__________________

i dont kwno why people argue about this. people are gonna believe what they want to believe regardless of what other poeple tell them.

My troll radar is going off the fucking charts right now. You might as well stick around, though. Most of the regs here are too stupid to know what you're trying to do and will take you seriously.

__________________

Chris, I have thouroughly enjoyed reading your posts in this thread.

As for the suggestions that I've stumbled upon here, that humans should be special and something apart from the rest of the world's animals, there shouldn't logically be room for any more argument here. We are animals period, though with a fairly powerful advantage regurlarly used with all effiency of a retard cleaning a skyscraper with a tooth brush.
There are ways of using the scientific method to reach the conclusion that human are - POTENTIALLY - something different from most animals. But at least in my theorising that is not possible until you accept what Chris has already explained.

__________________

Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you the product of postmodern education.

When you're all finished having sex with the mouth of the evidentiary process, let's throw in some links.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://www.scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/ and most of the other blogs on ScienceBlogs

LEARN. THEN TALK. You have 10^11 neurons and 10^1 fingers. Some of you should use them in the same proportions.

__________________

Bang, another smack on postmodernism, fluttering away into oblivion like so much empathy-talk to a charging rhino. It just feels so damn pointless at times.

Anyway, what I really wanted to post about was to say thank you for the link to scienceblogs, didn't even know about that one before. Looks interesting.

__________________

That second link is fucking awesome.

__________________

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...31/fangs_lg.php

This is one of hell of a phylogenetic tree, though. I've never seen Lamprophiinae treated as a distinct family, and never thought it would be found to be the sister taxa of the Elapidae. It's also interesting that the author recognizes Natricinae, Pseudoxenodontinae, Homalopsinae, Pareatinae, and Xenodermatinae (which have historically been considered subfamilies rooted in the Colubridae) as valid families while apparently not affording the same recognition to Crotalidae (which he treats here as part of Viperidae). Obviously a lot of work has been done here; this tree represents Viperidae as being closer to Colubridae than either Pareatidae or Xenodermatidae and also considers the Viperidae to be basal to other advanced snake groups.

I'd love to see this authors work, his taxonomy greatly intrigues me.

__________________

Second that! Lots of ID bashing and awesome articles.

__________________

Well, how about that. Everyone with half a brain is willing to engage in the evidentiary process... who'd have ever guessed?

Let me develop something here. When was the last time I wrote a post longer than a few sentences? This is something that has always bugged the living shit out of me, so I might as well...

Where do people think 'scientific consensus' comes from? And why is there this perpetual undercurrent of thought in so many areas that shows such a gleeful disrespect for it?

I'll tell you where it fucking comes from to start with. People like me, sitting in offices with dodgy heating, working for fuck-all for long periods of time. What happens when millions of very clever people with the same tools address the same problems? A consensus develops fairly quickly.

Scientists love nothing better than being right, than displaying cool shit. When people say "isn't that an ego thing?" they're right... but that isn't a problem. We like it when we find out whatever it is that other people don't know. Some scientists make this personal (and they're usually shitbags, in my experience) and most of them don't.

This is something I used to tell people who I met doing paranormal research who bagged on scepticism:

"If you can display paranormal powers to me, I would be so very very happy. I would love nothing better than to be witness to a display of unequivocal, unexplainable power. I COULD JERK OFF TO THE THOUGHT OF IT. If I could prove and disseminate said power, I would win prizes, become incredibly wealthy, famous, and most importantly, start a whole body of successful research into something that fascinates everyone. I would have the most fascinating, busy, comfortable, fulfilling, perfect life ever and before I died happy, they'd invent a new category of Nobel Prize so I can win it. So, could I please see your special magical powers now, because I'd love nothing better than to be proved absolutely dead wrong."

This is how science works.

If at this point you point to paradigmatical shifts in historical thinking as "ev'dunce that fings are WRONGG", you are an idiot. Of course, things turn out to be LESS CORRECT as we discover more. Lamarck was a step up from "everything popped out of the air". Wallace and Darwin were steps up from Lamarck. SNPs and allelic drift are steps up from them. They are all 'wrong'. They are all increasingly LESS WRONG. They give us more explanative power over time, more knowledge, more tools of investigation, more power, and for all I know probably more chest hair. The way we get up these stairs is the most incredible amount of thought. Any scientific consensus is the result of millions and millions of hours of thought and conflict and heartache and near-insanity of brilliantly clever people.

In case any of you in here are still under the delusion that the reeking stoolpit between your outflow pipes normally known as ears is functioning at a level that makes this entire monumental endeavour of kicking, fighting, bleeding, hard-fought consensus moot, let me assure you of a few things.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.
EVOLUTION IS REAL.
VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM.
MOST OF THE GOVERNMENT IS RUN FOR ITS OWN SAKE.
THE WORLD IS ENTIRELY CORRUPT, UTTERLY HEARTLESS AND RUN BY PSYCHOPATHS.
THERE ARE NO PSYCHIC MEDIUMS, TELEPATHIC POWERS, REAL HOROSCOPES, OR 'ALTERNATIVE' MEDICINES.
THERE IS NO GOD.

If you disagree with these things, YOU ARE WRONG. And then you can lick my fucking second-bottle-of-red-wine hubris-flavoured taint, you simian shitbags. I'll tell you what real hubris is: it's a retarded sack of proteinous cunt drippings sitting on a message board looking into a monitor that could conceivably display THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENTIRE STORY OF HUMAN ENDEAVOUR and instead using it to DISPERSE OPINIONS THAT INSULT THAT STORY.

If this doesn't make sense, I don't give a fuck. Pass the damn bottle.

__________________

Here ya go. And keep it, it's so depressing knowing that the nice pink fog will lift anyway, given time.

Though we might have a bit of a clash over global warming - I'm in no way convinced about the human part in it - thank you for this. It's really really really nice reading your own thoughts in someone elses writings.

__________________

Do you use an online translator when you post?

__________________

Ouch, there the diploma took a suicidal plunge from the wall.

Your point being?

__________________

Wow. I can be a real dick when I'm drunk.



He's saying you speak a curious pidgin version of English that is two thirds charming and one thirds hilarious. Have you ever read Everything Is Illuminated?

Today's paper - http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/wh...80801-3okn.html

__________________

Amadeus learned some of his English from me. Can't you tell? I understood perfectly.

fbs, I was getting scared of your long post until the last couple lines when I breathed a sigh of relief that you're still yourself.

__________________

Hilarious - as in ridicoulous that is? Well, in the spirit of the thread, I guess you could call this an example of that evolution frequently runs into dead ends.
Well, to an extent, yes. Though it's mainly a matter of being easily bored. Not to mention, I used to get quite some amusement from teacher's reaction, especially in Swedish classes. Poor things looking for actual formal errors...

No, haven't read that one.

__________________