The Blue Board

You really have trouble making coherent statements don't you?

Not only that, but he has an Auburn emoticon for a username and is a Bama fan.

God help us!! (this statement in no way is meant to make people think I am a creationalist. I stand by evolution and don't really think it should be called a theory).

I will demean whoever the hell I choose to demean, OK?

I wasnt referring to you. I was referring to the ongoing "you are wrong, we are right" battle between religion and science. But just so you feel tough, I literally wet my pants when you spoke sternly to me via message board... Literally.

I'm a little confused here on two points.

First:why anyone Is trying to debunk evolution by debunking universe-creation theories.

Second: trying to logically state that not believing or not believing in fact of a higher being is illogical.

one thing to throw out there on evolution....where are all of the bones and fossils of all of the species between apes and man. we have what a handful of fragments? thats the great mystery. we have millions of dinosaur fragments/fossils/etc...but fossils of the supposed ancestors of humans are so rare that they find a fragment of a skull and its on the cover of time magazine.

just something to think about. I am not sold on total evolution. adaptation of species? yes certainly without a doubt. natural selection improving species? absolutely...but wholesale evolution? the proof is not there yet.

really? people date primate evolution starting 85 million years ago. small gap in time? how fast did evolution take place?

dinosaurs were on earth for 100-200 million years. I don't see your point.

The part that I refer to was before humans...way before humans...

Either A) we havent found them or aren't actively searching hard enough B) the divergence was wrongly hypothesized

While the gaps can't be answered, the general evolution of man from prior primates is quite evident in the DNA.

DNA explains the common creator argument as well as the common ancestry argument.

Point of what I am saying is: The absent fossil record wouldn't have given rise to the "missing link" saying if evolution was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...to me thats a pretty big hole in the argument. I think many evolutionists agree that the fossils should be there but they are not...or as you say haven't been found. Many of them talk about mankind living in concentrated groups, smaller numbers (as Tal says in his post), and that one day we'll stumble upon a bunch of them.

Again, natural selection, adaptation, some evolution are without a doubt...but wholesale common ancestry....I don't buy it yet.

Also, here's a copy/paste of a quick and dirty explanation of evolution (human evolution in particular) that I gave from the "are people born straight?" thread a few days ago:

theFightingtide said...

I am not understanding the part about why they do not keep evolving today though? You get what I mean? Wouldn't we see at least more steps form them trying to evolve into homo sapiens?

Because we didn't evolve directly from them. Imagine a "common ancestor" as a tree branch. At the base of the branch, a twig comes off and that represents the oldest of the Great Apes. As the branch (common ancestor) moves along, it becomes a gorilla and gives off a gorilla twig. The gorilla twig will remain a gorilla, or at least evolve to what we know as a gorilla today from some common ancestor we share. The common ancestor keeps going and evolving until he becomes more chimp-like, at which point he gives off a chimp twig that then evolves into what we know today as chimps. They stay in that twig, but the common ancestor keeps moving down the branch. As it evolves, it gives off branches for gibbons, and then Austrailopithicus, and then Homo habilis, then Homo erectus, and finally it gives off Homo sapiens (us). So you see, the gorilla didn't become Homo sapiens, they both came from the same common ancestor (branch), they just found their spot earlier and evolved to become more like gorillas from there. That's what it means when somebody says that humans and chimps are 96% identical - we had the same common ancestor until the chimps split off 96% of the way to our twig. Whereas with something like a microscopic roundworm (with which we still share 70% of our DNA), our common ancestor only goes as far as 70% up the branch before their twig came off.

Think of it like your family tree. Who do you think of as your family? Probably you, your siblings, and your parents. Then a little less like family are your aunts, uncles and cousins. Then your second and third cousins. Maybe you even still feel related to some 4th or 5th cousin you're related to by marriage. But trace back your ancestors five or six generations, to your parents, and each of their parents, and each of your grandparents' parents, and so on. Eventually you will get a large number of people, each one very different from you. Then trace them back down to those 4th or 5th cousins, or even further to somebody you don't even feel technically related to. To you it seems like your families are completely different, but you can trace them both back to the same people eventually, which are your common ancestors.

To clarify, thinking of gorillas evolving into us is like thinking of one of those distant cousins evolving into you - it didn't/won't happen. However, the same great-great-great-grandfather you share "evolved" into both of you through the power of reproduction.

The jesus monster, that's where

Nm