We are monkeys...

Started by Remulous6 pages

Originally posted by Evil Dead
my research is not necissary. I don't believe I have anything to add to the findings of thousands upon thousands of scientists who had the means and will to conduct research. Their research and data is however accessible to anybody else with the means and desire to double check.........go for it since you doubt.

that's the dumbest thing I've read all day. Our ancestoral species are not still roaming the earth.....neither are the ancestoral species of gorillas, orangutans, chimps, monkeys, etc. Each species evolved along a seperate branch of many, many generations of ancestoral species.......but if you go back far enough in time, those branches will intersect at the point the very first animal we would classify today as an ape.

according to your logic.........when Labradores and Poodles were bred to create the labradoodle (a trendy new "designer" breed of dog).....the instant the first labradoodle was born, all poodles and labradores should have dropped dead as it is impossible for it's ancestors to co-exist on the same planet.

do you think before you type?

if u want want to use dogs as an example does that mean i could mate with gorilla to make a new breed of human.

Originally posted by Remulous
if u want want to use dogs as an example does that mean i could mate with another type of ape to make a new breed of human,like the labradoodle.

I think you are completely ignorant on this topic. If a species is to far removed, they cannot breed. However, if the two are closely related they can breed, but ofter the offspring is unfertile.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are completely ignorant on this topic. If a species is to far removed, they cannot breed. However, if the two are closely related they can breed, but ofter the offspring is unfertile.
so how can u even use dogs as an example,if evolution is truly real how become no 1 has ever witnessed it

Originally posted by Remulous
so how can u even use dogs as an example,if evolution is truly real how become no 1 has ever witnessed it

It's not quite true there are cases of rapid evolution that have been observed, but generally evolution is a very long process...so if you don't happen to live for 100 000 years you are unlikely to witness major changes.

Originally posted by Remulous
so how can u even use dogs as an example,if evolution is truly real how become no 1 has ever witnessed it

Do you believe that there is a thing called an Atom?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not quite true there are cases of rapid evolution that have been observed, but generally evolution is a very long process...so if you don't happen to live for 100 000 years you are unlikely to witness major changes.
they tell u things have happened millions years ago b cause theres is no way u could ever see it happen.they tell u things will happen in the next million years b cuase u wont live 2 see it, that sounds a little too conveinient to me.the story of evolution is just a well planed fairy tale.

Originally posted by Remulous
they tell u things have happened millions years ago b cause theres is no way u could ever see it happen.they tell u things will happen in the next million years b cuase u wont live 2 see it, that sounds a little too conveinient to me.the story of evolution is just a well planed fairy tale.

nah, they give evidence why it is moist likely like they say it is most likely. You should research it, don't take anyones word for it, look at the evidence and draw your conclusions. It is just really likely. You could start on wikipedia and then continue from there.

Originally posted by Remulous
i got an idea for u. maybe u should stop acting like a total A hole.

My idea's better. You're too stupid to be embarassed by the spectacle you're making of yourself, but it gives me sympathy pains. And you know, when you call the entire scientific community a bunch of liars, you sort of give up the right to whine when people make fun of you.

(Honestly, it would be better if you were a fundamentalist Christian; at least then you'd have some sort of excuse).

You're quite wrong in saying that we haven't witnessed evolution, by the way. Look up Helacyton gartleri.

Helacyton gartleri

The immortal remains of Henrietta Lacks.

When human body cells are removed and put into a cell culture, they weaken and die quickly, usually within about 50 divisions. Without the rest of the support structure—a heart, blood circulating, a digestive system and so-on—body cells can't survive. Body cells also age, so even if you were to simulate the body's environment in a test tube or petri dish, the cells would eventually perish anyway. The basic mortality of the cells reflect the basic mortality of the organism they comprise, which is why there's no fountain of youth or medicinal procedure that'll give you biological immortality.

There is, however, one human being who is biologically immortal on a technicality, and her name is Henrietta Lacks. In 1951 she showed up at John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, complaining of blood spotting in her underwear. Samples were taken of her cervical tissue and sent to a lab for analysis, which came back with a diagnosis of cervical cancer.

The cancer was caused by the Human papillomavirus, which is a sexually transmitted disease. Most variants of this virus are harmless, but some are known to cause cervical cancer, as in Henrietta's case. After her diagnosis and before attempts to treat the disease with radium, another sample from the tumor was sent to George Gey, who was the head of tissue culture research at Hopkins. Gey discovered that the cells from Henrietta's tumor would not only survive and multiply outside of her body, but they didn't age either. These cells were basically immortal.

And they're still alive, even though Henrietta herself died of the cancer on October 4th, 1951. Now, HeLa cells are about as common in biological research as the lab rat and the petri dish, and are still being grown in an unbroken lineage from the cells originally harvested from Mrs. Lacks in 1951. They're used in cancer research because a scientist can perform experiments on them that otherwise couldn't be done on a living human being. They were also used in the development of the Polio vaccine, making Henrietta somewhat of a posthumous hero to millions.

But say you're a scientist looking at HeLa cells under a microscope. They live independently of the body they came from. They reproduce (faster even than other cancerous cells). They consume, excrete, and do everything an independent living organism usually does. A thousand years from now there will still be HeLa cells multiplying and living, even some of the original cells sampled from Mrs. Lacks, even though Henrietta Lacks herself has long since passed away. Is this a new species?

In 1991 the scientific community decided it was, and blessed HeLa cells with its own genus and species: Helacyton gartleri, named by Van Valen & Maiorana.

That would make Helacyton gartleri an example of speciation, which is when a new species is observed developing from another. In this case, the development is from a chordate (homo sapien) to something that's more like an ameoba (a cross-phylum mutation), giving us an animal with a mostly human genotype, but which does not develop into a human-like phenotype. Since this event occurred in nature when the papillomavirus transformed Henrietta's cells, and not in the laboratory, it's a strong piece of evidence supporting Evolution (although not one that suggests you could go from an ameoba to a chordate, which would probably take more than one mutation).

Originally posted by Gregory
My idea's better. You're too stupid to be embarassed by the spectacle you're making of yourself, but it gives me sympathy pains. And you know, when you call the entire scientific community a bunch of liars, you sort of give up the right to whine when people make fun of you.

You're quite wrong in saying that we haven't witnessed evolution, by the way. Look up Helacyton gartleri.

i got an even better idea 4 u...shuv it,u know what u r an m&m...with no nutts.if u dont want to see my post put me on your ignore list or something...A$$

I could put you on ignore, yes.

Is English your native language?

Originally posted by Remulous
i got an even better idea 4 u...shuv it,u know what u r an m&m...with no nutts.if u dont want to see my post put me on your ignore list or something...A$$

You seem to be ignoring me.

WOW...u guys gave me alot to read,u must didnt want me to post any more.that all sounds good and in many ways i can see where your comeing from.but their isnt enough physical evidence to prove it.its stiil just words.tell me, how was that any different from the bible.they both want to tell u about a distant past that their is no physical proof of.the theory of evolution sounds just as crazy as 1 of the books of the bible.

Originally posted by Remulous
WOW...u guys gave me alot to read,u must didnt want me to post any more.that all sounds good and in many ways and i can see where your comeing from.but their isnt enough physical evidence to prove it.its stiil just words.tell me how was that any different than the bible.they both want to tell u about a distant past that their is no physical proof of.the theory of evolution sounds just as crazy as 1 of the books from the bible.

No not as crazy.

For example, the Earth is much older then 6,000 years old. This information is for anyone to see, go to the Grand Cannon sometime. Also, the human race could not have come from just two people. If we did, the genetic diversity would be smaller then it is now. We know this because we have studied many other animals, and have seen animals go existence. If there were only two humans, we would become extinct in a matter of generations.

Also, evolution doesn't require a God to work. Didn't you say you didn't have any religion? So a nontheistic explanation should be much more plausible then a theistic one.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No not as crazy.

For example, the Earth is much older then 6,000 years old. This information is for anyone to see, go to the Grand Cannon sometime. Also, the human race could not have come from just two people. If we did, the genetic diversity would be smaller then it is now. We know this because we have studied many other animals, and have seen animals go existence. If there were only two humans, we would become extinct in a matter of generations.

so beings just randomly changeing over time isnt,also what did apes evolve from.

Originally posted by Remulous
so beings just randomly changeing over time isnt,also what did apes evolve from.

Random is not how evolution works. You have been reading too much Christian anti-evolution propaganda.

Originally posted by Remulous
so beings just randomly changeing over time isnt,also what did apes evolve from.

It's called mutation which happens quite often... If it happens to be beneficial and the traits get passed on generation to generation eon after eon, it's called evolution. All living things adapt or they die out generally speaking. That's the simple form of it. There's also work being done now that speculates that most evolution is caused my viruses.

There's also work being done now on the speculation that viruses have a large role in how.why things evolve.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Random is not how evolution works. You have been reading too much Christian anti-evolution propaganda.
i haven't read any christian propaganda,im not even a christian,also,once again what did apes evolve from.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's called mutation which happens quite often... If it happens to be beneficial and the traits get passed on generation to generation eon after eon, it's called evolution. All living things adapt or they die out generally speaking. That's the simple form of it. There's also work being done now that speculates that most evolution is caused my viruses.

There's also work being done now on the speculation that viruses have a large role in how.why things evolve.

what causes mutation,what did apes evolve from?