How pathetic and childish to believe than man, somehow morphed/evolved out of fish – like magically one species changes, due to environmental effects, into something different. How….fantastic is that?!!!! Isn’t it more reasonable and logical to imagine a magical force that invented us, out of scratch, for its own amusement and tests us, even while knowing the outcome of its own tests because he created us and who punishes us with suffering or for using the very It gave us in ways It disapproves of? Isn’t the universe just too perfect to be explained as a result of chance? I mean sure, a pile of shit, having become conscious of itself might view its circumstances as special and perfect, and the asshole that produced it as magical, but doesn’t it make sense to imagine a beginning where no beginnings are in evidence?
Robert_JS: At first I was going to say, you cannot be serious, but then I realized that you probably are serious. Try reading some informative books on geography, the fossil record, and a few other pertinent subjects. Just a little education will indicate how silly your aquatic ancestor theory is. The fossil record and modern DNA analysis clearly supports the out of Africa theory of human migration. Other than imaginative speculation, there is no support for an aquatic ancestor swimming from continent to continent. Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and other humans are too similar to have evolved from an aquatic ancestor independently on different continents. An aquatic ancestor capable of swimming from continent to continent would be very different from any modern human. The evolutionary descendants of such an ancestor would show far more variety than that exhibited by the current human populations. You do not seem to be aware that primitive people are capable of building boats and sailing hundreds of miles, as well as being able to walk. Getting to the Hawaiian Islands might have required the longest voyage of any migration, and was probably a much later voyage than those which initially populated Australia and the Americas. Getting from Eastern Asia to the Americas via the Bering Straights or via island hopping along the Aleutian Islands does not require any long voyages. Similarly, getting to Australia via island hopping does not require any long voyages. You do not even need a geography course to check out the distances required. Just study a good globe rather than a Mercator projection which distorts areas and distances. None are so blind as those who refuse to look. You have an intellectual blindness because you refuse to learn.
There is no evidence that humans evolved from Apes. The evidence which is used to proved humans evolved from apes could also be used to prove apes evolved from humans. How exactly are people so certain that apes are an older species than humans? Humans are certainly smarter than apes. So wouldnt it be logical for humans to have been the first ape-like species and those other species simply evolved from us?
If the environment is your God, go worship the atoms that make up the environment. I'd rather worship the energy that gives order to the atoms, I'd rather worship the electron than to believe in the myth of nature and the theory that environment controls evolution. The electron and the brain control evolution, you choose how you evolve by who you choose to mate with. And you always, had that choice, as did your ancestors. It just so happens that some of our ancestors found intelligence sexy because the smart people could talk and the stupid people couldnt. I think we chose communicators beause communicaton is romantic, and the cave man shit got old, how long do you think humans could go around raping each other before some human figured out it's better to talk a person into having sex with them?
Time Traveler: Like Robert, you do not seem to have read or understood much about the pertinent subject matter. Modern biology and evolutionary theory do not claim that we evolved form apes. It is claimed that chimps, humans, and other primates evolved from a common ancestor (now extinct), which was not like any of the modern primate species. The fossil record shows that chimps and humans appeared very late in the history of primate evolution. The evidence does not provide any support for an ape-like species evolving from a human-like species. As indicated above, modern apes, chimps, and other primates are are not necessarily older species than humans. DNA analysis and various methods of dating fossils provide a lot of support for modern evolutionary theory. There are older species (now extinct) that were more primitive (from out point of view) than modern humans. As I suggested to Robert, you should do a bit more reading on the subject to avoid embarassing yourself.
Dude, that makes soooo much sense. The electron versus the atom? That was funny. No, the environment doesn't evolve species, it's the magical energy giving order? to the atoms. That's deep, man.
No offense to abderites(psychoanalytically speaking), but the idea that we evolved from monkeys is a misconception. What happened, is that we evolved from the same ancestor. Before you teach, you should read.
30,000-40,000 years ago, when humans first reached Australia, sea level was 300-400 feet lower. Australia and New Guinea were a single land mass, all the Indonesian and Malaysian islands were much larger, and Asia's coastline was much further out. The sea voyage from Asia to Australia was much simpler even than it is today. Hawaii on the other hand required astounding seamanship and was first settled less than 2,000 years ago.
Fraggle Rocker: Do you have a source for the following? 300-400 feet of water over the entire Atlantic & Pacific Oceans seems like a hell of a lot of water. BTW: I think humans got to Australia about 60,000 years ago.
It was in the Wikipedia article on migration to Australia. Sea level was something like 150 feet lower just ten or twenty thousand years ago. How much water is trapped in glaciers during a maximum ice age? I've seen that number too. I chose a conservative, more easily substantiated estimate for a discussion with so much controversy.
It seems to me that taking the liberty to halve a supposed ancient timeframe, from 60,000 years down to 30,000 years, "because it's a more easily substantiated estimate," speaks volumes about the pure guesswork of the mainstream dating methods. Why don't you halve it again, down to 15,000 years, because "it's a more easily substantiated estimate?" How short could the date be for you to be extremely confident of your date, Frag?
Because it isn't. That would be a contradicted estimate, impossible to substantiate. There is firm evidence of 30 - 40 k, as the latest earliest time frame of arrival consistent with the evidence. There is debated, possibly indicative evidence of earlier arrival - perhaps even 60k. I hope that is not too complicated a situation for you.
You guys sure play fast and loose with huge percentages of your hard numbers, it looks more like a creative art-form than science, but I guess you think you know what you're doing, that's obviously very important for you, iceaura.
I realize that the dating methods are suspect, Darwinists act as though they are fool-proof, how gullible.
They're "foolproof" within limits. The get us to the right ballpark, and sometines even into the right seating section. What you got, homeboy? Oh right. The infallible bible. Rats. We lose again.
Many of the dates fall right in line with the Biblical timeline, but of course, those results are tossed by your homeboys, homeboy.
