best website to hookup for freeTaking a quality more than quantity method will likely allow for a more careful assessment of whether a prospective date could be a fantastic match. dating sites mn Add voice, video, music, social media, and a lot more to your dating profile. Having said that, you can upgrade to a Preferred Membership, which permits you to greater filter outcomes. ho chi minh hook up You are signing up to get e mail notifications on our newest content material from across the industries and functional practices. 3 way hookup appFemales open the app, pick out men they like, and that is it. park city dating If they strongly resist a video call, that could be a sign of suspicious activity. But withstanding that, nonetheless advantages for people or regional groups (e. locanto philippines We recruited the aid of some decision influencers also, but not as the heroic characters audiences would count on, since when you re dating These nightmare scenarios can even occur to influencers. Home Sign In Search Date Ideas Join Forums Groups
10/3/2008 8:54:21 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
valion
Chicopee, MA
age: 56
|
Man evolved with intelligence because it increases our likelihood of survival. For other species, intelligence is not necessary to thrive. If other traits result in better survivability, those are the traits more likely to remain and evolve in a species. Also, intelligence uses up a lot of energy. Our brain uses up 20% of the body's energy - compared to wild animals in a natural setting, that's wasteful. Chimps, by comparison, have brains that only use up about 8% of their body's energy, allowing far more energy to drive their muscles which is more beneficial for them in their environment.
What nonsense. For EVERY other species intelligence was not necessary to survive. Could man not have gotten by simply living in a cave and scurrying out for a bite to eat when the bad creatures were busy? That would be much like how any number of species survive. Could he not have wandered in great herds and let predators pick off the lame and old as many species do?
There was OBVIOUSLY something going on in the DNA that FAR surpassed mere survival. Wake up. Your point is absurd.
|
10/3/2008 9:26:54 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
rockondon
Prince George, BC
age: 35 online now!
|
What nonsense. For EVERY other species intelligence was not necessary to survive.
You're inferring that all non-humans have no intelligence? There are huge differences in intellect in the animal kingdom.
Do animals live in the forest? If so, human-level intelligence is not necessary for them to survive.
Could he not have wandered in great herds and let predators pick off the lame and old as many species do?
Hitler would certainly agree with that rationale.
There was OBVIOUSLY something going on in the DNA that FAR surpassed mere survival. Wake up. Your point is absurd.
There is, its called mutations, a key component of evolution.
Absurd is believing a book about a magic dude casting spells to create the universe. Absurd is you pretending to be christian and doing everything possible to NOT understand His creation. Absurd is someone who posts hate and intolerance while preaching love.
|
10/3/2008 9:37:44 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
ourself
Hamilton, ON
age: 36
|
Wow, Rock... That was actually moving.
Good job!
I think it's a little weird when folks get so defensive about this. There's no merit in being defensive about a discovered fact. You just deal with it and change your beliefs accordingly.
|
10/3/2008 10:23:37 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
skipaway
Bartlett, IL
age: 43
|
and the discovered fact is ?
|
10/3/2008 10:29:01 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 64
|
If man and gorillas had a common ancestor, why is man flying space shuttles and gorilla still eating each other's fleas?
They evolved into different branches, each with different capacities. Humans are clearly more able to build things than gorillas, but we seem un-evolved in other ways, such as our inability to create lasting peace for ourselves.
Oceans
|
10/3/2008 10:35:55 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
ourself
Hamilton, ON
age: 36
|
and the discovered fact is ?
That species evolve.
|
10/3/2008 10:47:33 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
skipaway
Bartlett, IL
age: 43
|
In the study of Astrology,
the study of Biology,
the study of Microbiology
and in the study of Physics
the theory of evolution is not
a workable theory,
you can find notable, well know,
accomplished scientists in each of these
fields who will and do understand that
the evolutionary model does not work.
|
10/3/2008 10:54:16 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
jewelz5
Monteagle, TN
age: 54 online now!
|
It took man over a million years to progress from using stones as he found them to the realization that they could be chipped and flaked to better purpose. It then took another 500,000 years before Neanderthal man mastered the concept of stone tools, and a further 50,000 years before crops were cultivated and metallurgy was discovered. Hence, by all scales of evolutionary reckoning, we should still be as far removed from any basic understanding of mathematics, engineering or science - But here we are, only 7,000 years later, landing probes on Mars. So, how did we inherit wisdom, and from whom? - Laurence Gardner
|
10/3/2008 11:01:02 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
skipaway
Bartlett, IL
age: 43
|
hey jewelz --
how's your day going?
Going to lunch ..... TTY
[Edited 10/3/2008 11:01:29 AM]
|
10/3/2008 11:15:28 AM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
ourself
Hamilton, ON
age: 36
|
I don't know what to tell you, Skipaway... Can you give me a name of a couple of those so I can check creds?
I think you are just perpetuating a myth. In fact, we have seen evolution recently. In E-Coli.
I'm too new to post the link but just google e-coli evolution... Newest update was in June.
Have you ever heard of evolutionary biology? You should google that too. The study of evolution is not a study to determine the truth of a theory. It's studying the way things go!
Get it through your heads folks... Things evolve!
I am not claiming exclusivity of truth when I say evolution is fact. I'm not saying we understand it fully, but it happens. We just don't know exactly how. That's why it's the fact with many theories trying to explain the fact.
I'll give you that we haven't any conclusive proof that we came from chimps yet, but evolution works and is working.
[Edited 10/3/2008 11:29:57 AM]
|
10/3/2008 12:31:39 PM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
jewelz5
Monteagle, TN
age: 54 online now!
|
|
10/3/2008 12:48:09 PM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
lovesgod57
Waukegan, IL
age: 51 online now!
|
Jewelz, I stumbled across David Icke's myspace. Thought you'd be interested.
I know I said I was done with this topic.....BUUUUTTT;
A.
Present day modern man which averages about 6-feet tall + or - several inches or more.
B.
15-foot human skeleton found in southeast Turkey in late 1950's in the Euphrates valley during road construction. Many tombs containing giants were uncovered here. This pertains to the picture of the giant human femur and myself above.
C.
Maximinus Thrax Ceaser of Rome 235-238 A.D. This was an 8' 6" skeleton.
D.
Goliath was about 9 feet + or - a few inches. I Samuel 17:4 late 11th century.
E.
King Og spoken of in Deuteronomy 3:11 whose iron bedstead was approximately 14-feet by 6-feet wide. King Og was at least 12-feet tall, yet some claim up to 18.
F.
A 19'6" human skeleton found in 1577 A.D. under an overturned oak tree in the Canton of Lucerne.
G.
23-foot tall skeleton found in 1456 A.D. beside a river in Valence, France.
H.
A 25' 6 " skeleton found in 1613 A.D. near the castle of Chaumont in France. This was claimed to be a nearly complete find.
I.
Almost beyond comprehension or believability was the find of the two separate 36-foot human remains uncovered by Carthaginians somewhere between 200-600 B.C.
Evolution?
|
10/3/2008 1:06:38 PM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
saintgasoline
Saint Louis, MO
age: 26
|
What nonsense. For EVERY other species intelligence was not necessary to survive.
Wrong. You know why pigeons survive so well in cities when other creatures don't? It's in part because they are more intelligent in varying degrees than other animals. The same goes for crows.
Increases in intelligence have helped many animals survive. Not all animals are like bees or ants and merely rely on emergent order from stupid, blind wandering. Most animals higher than the insects possess some degree of intelligence. Apes can recognize their own reflections, for instance, whereas other animals can't. This is important for social living. Apes even have better short term memories than humans do, as demonstrated by a few studies, so it isn't as clear-cut that we are "more intelligent" than all animals in all respects.
Plus, the theory of evolution doesn't entail that every creature will evolve the same solution to a problem. Mutations are random, so there is no reason to expect our degree of intelligence to evolve repeatedly, as it is largely a historical accident (though the context of our living in groups, being meat eaters, and being relatively small and weak helped a lot in giving high intelligence huge selection pressures). The mutations in our ancestors could have led to us getting bulkier and bigger to protect ourselves, but we just happened to get lucky and get those mutations that increased intelligence and allowed for language production.
You could just as easily argue that cheetahs are the superior species because no other land creature can run as fast, and could not cheetahs have gotten by simply scurrying for a bite to eat at the speed other creatures? This is a silly argument, and you know it. Obviously being faster is beneficial and increases survival, and obviously increases in intelligence can do the same.
|
10/3/2008 1:11:37 PM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
saintgasoline
Saint Louis, MO
age: 26
|
In the study of Astrology,
the study of Biology,
the study of Microbiology
and in the study of Physics
the theory of evolution is not
a workable theory,
you can find notable, well know,
accomplished scientists in each of these
fields who will and do understand that
the evolutionary model does not work.
I believe you that there are plenty in the field of "astrology" who deny evolution, but the percentage of accomplished scientists who doubt evolution in legitimate scientific fields (perhaps you meant astronomy?) is much, much lower than in the average population. For instance, one creationist organization published a list of doctors and scientists who disbelieved in evolution and gathered 100 signatures. But on the other side of the spectrum, a list of doctors and scientists whose names are "Stephen" variants (like Steve, Stephanie, Stephan, etc.) amassed more signatures than that 100 from the creationist list. This just goes to show that there are much larger numbers of scientists who accept evolution. (For your information, the "Steve" list is called Project Steve, you can look it up on Google.)
The only "well-known" people I can name who deny evolution and have PhDs are William Dembski and Michael Behe. It doesn't seem as true that they are "accomplished" scientists, though.
Here's a question for you, though: do you even know what evolution is, what the theory would entail, and what evidence is said to support it? I highly doubt it.
|
10/3/2008 1:27:57 PM |
Evolution: the fairy tale |
|
skipaway
Bartlett, IL
age: 43
|
I did a search for "evolution e-coli"
I clicked on a few pages,
here's one that I found interesting,
it was post on June 10, 2008
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O
here's some copy and paste that I grabbed from it,
An interesting paper has just appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.” (1) It is the “inaugural article” of Richard Lenski, who was recently elected to the National Academy. Lenski, of course, is well known for conducting the longest, most detailed “lab evolution” experiment in history, growing the bacterium E. coli continuously for about twenty years in his Michigan State lab. For the fast-growing bug, that’s over 40,000 generations!
I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. So random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them, even when it helps an organism to survive. That’s a very important point. A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell.
I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.
well any way, if evolution was something that slowly took place
over long periods of time? There would be ample amounts of
evidence for it, but there's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures.
the odds that life as we know it
in all it's forms and complexity,
happened over extensive time
and chance,it's silly
and it's not proven,
it just a theory that doesn't work,
|
|