If we evolved from monkeys-

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Felon, Apr 11, 2009.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Me too. The soft thin paper in bibles doesn't chaff as much.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    It may seem that way Will, but the people who "lived back then" deserve much more credit than what we commonly ascribe to them. I mean it is obvious to almost everyone that you have reached enlightenment of a level rarely attained by people today, but unfortunately you are limited by the conspiracies designed to withhold vital information from us.

    I for one have had enough of it, so even though it may cost my life, I am going to disclose some information given to me by my Great Grandfather, a Grand KulaHoo in an ancient society predating even the Knights of Templar.

    You see, Will, I know you are skeptical of evolution, but...
    randwolf, et. al. 2009

    So you see Will, it is not your fault. The evidence, including descriptions and pictures was there but is now long gone. It is little wonder that a skeptical mind such as your own has difficulty with the concept of evolution. I mean, I know I would, were it not for the secret knowledge passed down to me by my ancestor. What are we to do? :shrug:

    Your thoughts?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Felon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35
    For arguments sake lets say we did evolve from monkeys.That means at some point in time, before humans first existed, our ancestors were monkeys. The monkey race split blah blah blah and here we are.

    Now imagine our next step in evolution. What if half of us evolves into the next, greater creature and the other half doesn't? Wouldn't that be crazy?! My offspring's great, great, great, great, great times a thousands grandchildren may evolve into the next race, yet yours may not.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    If we allow for gross oversimplification and a great deal of latitude in terminology (e.g. the "monkeys" in 'evolve from monkeys' were not "monkeys" in the sense that we know monkeys today), then, YES - you would in essence be correct. However, the more likely outcome in your little premise would be that both halves would evolve into new "races", albeit two totally different races (species). This concept seems to bother you on an emotional level for some reason, while it bothers me not one whit.


    If, to continue your analogy, each "half" of our offspring is somehow isolated in very different environments favoring very different survival adaptations; it would be logical to suppose that the original species will diverge over time.

    For example, let's say one half finds itself (for whatever reason) spending more and more time in and near the sea, then perhaps that population will adapt by increasing its ability to deep-dive, use oxygen more efficiently, conserve heat better (maybe with a layer of "blubber"), heighten the mammalian diving reflex, etc. (think dolphin like) Would this be such a bad thing?

    On the other hand, let's say the other half spends more and more time in or near forests and jungles. Maybe they will develop or enhance attributes that are more suited to an arboreal existence, such as stronger upper body muscles or even, heaven forbid, a prehensile tail. Would this be such a bad thing?


    Now these adaptations / enhancements mentioned in both cases would occur in very small increments from generation to generation. For example, in the "water world" scenario, those that can't hold their breath as long as others will tend to die younger, thereby leaving less off-spring carrying their genes.

    Conversely, those with the ability to hold their breath the longest would collect more food and evade more predators. They will have more opportunity to procreate, thereby having more children tending to carry these advantageous adaptations. If you can see this concept, even the slightest glimpse of it, you are half way home. Those individuals genetically best suited to current environmental conditions will, statistically speaking, produce more children carrying those advantageous genes. i.e. "Survival of the Fittest".

    Now comes the caveat, the one that you seem to dismiss out of hand. However slight these enhancements may be between individual generations, over time, a lot of time, these slight advantages will add up. In fact, they will eventually add up to the point where the change in the aggregate will prevent the two groups from interbreeding, hence two different species! Get it now?

    I know you dislike the idea that evolution takes so long to go from fish to squirrel, and it would be easier to see it if it happened quicker (such as in my satire) but nature is as nature does. Just because something takes a very long time to occur, does not mean that it doesn't happen at all!

    Now in the hypothetical scenarios that we outlined above, assuming that intelligence is conserved in both cases, I can not see why either of the two new species would be somehow "inferior" or "superior" to the other. They would just be different. Meanwhile, present day Homo Sapiens may, or may not have, died out.

    Now this illustration should certainly help you along the way to seeing how evolution functions in general. However, as I'm sure you already believe, although perhaps for different reasons than I, humans are different. Due to the nature of our intelligence, we are able to mitigate, if not outright negate, some of the natural selection factors usually at work in animal populations. This could have the effect of slowing, or even halting altogether, the "natural" evolution.

    On the other hand, that same intelligence may allow us to evolve even further and faster. For example, there is much speculation about the possibility (in the relatively near future, geologically speaking) of "downloading" our thoughts, personalities, etc. to some sort of artificial, perhaps silicon based, "life form". Would that be evolution? Me thinks this is a topic for another thread.

    In summary, maybe this post has given you a new perspective from which to contemplate evolution, or even opened a "crack" in your armor. That is not meant to be a derogatory comment, but rather to express genuine hope. Looking to the future, rather than the past, may make it easier to conceive how very, very, very slight genetic differences manifested today could, over very, very, very long periods of time, create the changes in organisms that scientists commonly label "evolution". Enjoy....
     
  8. chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Heres a better analogy.

    We did not evolve from them, we branched off.

    If you cannot understand that then take an anthropology class... actually, take one regardless.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So where is the evidence of the transitional species? Bones? Fossils? YouTube videos?

    Baron Max
     
  10. Clucky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    107
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Does that site have a running fossil record showing the transitional species from fish all the way through to humans? There should be gazillions of fossils showing the minor changes involved over the millions of years making the transition from one specie to another. Is there?

    Besides, if I want to learn something about some subject, I try not to go immediately to a totally biased site for "information".

    Baron Max
     
  12. Clucky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    107
    It shows evidence of transitional fossils,There will be only a select few, regarding transitionals. Fossils are incredibly rare, and to find a perfect specimen is nearly unheard of. The odds are significantly increased by the objective of finding a transitional one. Fossils are gems, and geologists can only dig at certain sites, and so deep at that to find them. What gives you the idea that geologists are magical shamans who can conjure up fantastical discoveries? There won't be gazillions, and even if there were, imagine the cross-referencing needed to discern minor changes. It is a gruelling and time-consuming task. You have been misinformed that fossils are found down the local chip shop.

    The site is indeed biases. As will no doubt all those that you would find on the topic. But it cites its authors and sources. What d you want.

    I#ll try and find out how many fossils are found per annum, for you.
     
  13. oiram Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cool picture, can I color it?
     
  14. scorpius a realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,350
    so what created god?
    www.godchecker.com

    btw the xian one is too contradictory to be real

    http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
    faith is belief in something for which theres no evidence,iow..its stupid.
    that would explain your lack of reasoning ability,..drugs do that!
     
  15. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,289
    Better he should take the gas pipe, methinks...
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    This is a stupid argument.

    Suppose I observe you leaving the house one day. Then, sitting outside your house, I see you come back an hour later carrying some milk and a newspaper.

    You're arguing that without a complete videotaped record of your movements, I cannot deduce that you walked to a shop, handed over some money, and purchased some milk and a newspaper, then walked home.
     
  17. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    The currently accepted theory is backward. Apes & monkeys evolved from humans.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    So did flying pigs, I hear.
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Humans did not evolve from monkey's. The great apes and humans share a common ancestor. Get it through your thick skull already.

    No, why would it be 'crazy' ?

    So what.. ?
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    A deduction like that would be highly suspect, James ...unless you knew for a fact that there was a store that sold milk and newspapers within walking distance.

    And see, you've stumbled onto the very problem with the theory of evolution ....the evos make up shit like that just to "prove" their precious theories! And worse, perhaps, people like you are so avid and devoted to the belief in evolution that you actually threaten people who question the theory (and sometimes even delete posts!).

    Baron Max
     
  21. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Which skulls are thicker, apes or humans?
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    And that common ancestor would likely be considered a monkey, or at least a primate. Sure enough, if you go back far enough, there was a monkey ancestor. It makes just as much sense to say we evolved from a shrew-like ancestor as well, it just depends how far back you want to go.
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You don't know if they were monkeys. Monkeys might have only arisen after we had split off.
     

Share This Page