Evolution question

dont believe the hype.
evolution is real. its not fishes turning into monkeys turning into humans tho.

its humans turning into different races etc
not completly different organisms tho

For example:

The africans were all dark skinned, and when we humans migrated north, the less sunny environments meant people with less coloring (melanin) managed to stay warm and get their vitamins off sunlight better, survived more than the darker folk, and over many many generations we end up with Whitey. Because the climate sucked, we had to figure out better survival techniques, build better shelters, and so on, and eventually the growth of technology vastly outpaced the folk still in Africa, who could just live in their straw huts and spear them some grub from the massive herds of african life!

That's a pretty basic account, but you should get the drill.

wow

thank you :)

i think the same thing goes for asians. difference being their food consumptions through the ages

also dutch people are supposed to be among the longest humans on earth. seeing as they live in the 'nether lands' the low lands one might say evolution is responsible for that. on the other hand you got people living in peru and in other places that are quite high from the seelevel and they tent to be really short

Please tell me you're kidding.

It has mostly to do with nutrition and health care.
We are taller than our grandparents (some of whom lived through the Hungerwinter), not time enough for such a mutation to spread through the whole population.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 02/12/2013 08:20 PM

Different from WHAT?

Please describe the typical shape of all bacteria, as you understand it.

uhh onderzoek wijst uit dat het gewoon klopt wat ik zei hoor.
door de lage ligging is er minder druk op het lichaam. dezelfde reden waarom mensen die hoog leven door meer druk kleiner zijn..

maar goed.

Like a plasmodium evolving to ecoli without human intervention.

[citation needed]

Even if it where true that mountain people are always shorter than plains people, correlation does not proof causation.
Swamp Arabs, Bangladeshi, all people who live in low-lying plains.
Are they shorter than their mountain brethren?


Bullshit.
Honestly, that's the dumbest thing I've read all day.

What pressure?

Air pressure?
Air pressure is lower in the mountains.
The pressure of weight?
It's lower in the mountains.
The difference is so small a kitchen scale couldn't tell the difference, though.

So you ARE aware there is no "typical" bacteria, and the phrase "still a bacteria" is oxymoronic?

When you consider the differences in not just structure but biochemistry, to say that a bacteria, "hasn't changed, but is still a bacteria" is like saying if you lost all your arms and legs, became ten meters tall, formed a chitinous shell, and developed a taste for drinking fuming sulfuric acid you, "hadn't changed, but is still a human."

The kind of massive change of digestive enzymes necessary for the nylonerase mutation of flavobacteria is roughly on the scale of a human spontaneously developing the ability to live on grass. Or breathe underwater.

(Those human adaptations would of course require a great many more steps, as we are more complex structures, but the gross relative scale of the adaptation is similar).



But at least you seem to have moved beyond the usual base level of ignorance. Enough that you've simply propounded another variation of the old canard, "Please show me the kind of evolutionary change that usually takes millions of years, but show me it happening in a year."

Idiotic.

Err...unless I seriously misunderstand ideal gas laws, a scale isn't going to show pressure, not in an open environment.

A thought though; due to rotation (I ain't gonna get into the "centrifugal force" thing right now -- that would be just asking for trouble!) a person at the equator weighs a few dozen pounds less.

(There is also a small relativistic effect from that, so we could argue there's a physical basis for those that live in the tropics not only being taller than those above the arctic circle, but seeming to move more slowly!)

that's not evolution, that's adaptation! adaptation IS NOT evolution.

So obviously that statement isn't true, that evolution has been observed in the lab. Its false. You cannot say that if you know for a fact that your lifespan on earth isn't enough to witness evolution.

Basically, its all an assumption that one day something will evolve to a completely different organism.

Those bones they use as evidence, did they make room that it could be deformed apes or deformed humans. One of a kind. Like people with 6 fingers.

As i said evolution is far from the truth.

The scale only refers to the "pressure" of weight.
On top of a mountain you're further away from the centre of the Earth, hence lighter.
I don't have a clue what kind of "pressure" the BLO-dropout actually meant.

I do know that the air pressure difference would easily show on a barometer.
It's one of the ways aircraft keep track of altitude. ;)

No. Didn't say that.

You created an arbitrary condition, defining evolution as "gross changes too large to happen in a lab on human scales," and then turned around to state the tautology that such changes had no in fact been observed on a human scale.

I might as well define stellar motion as that which can be observed by the naked eye, thus, there is no proper stellar motion. One could play this game endlessly.

Your definition is both circular and arbitrary; it is closely defined only by the access you have to what otherwise would be counter-examples. This makes it of course impossible to fulfill; you will simply expand it as needed.

This is also possible since your definition is not based on anything like, say, definition of species, or changes in capability. Heck; you have left it open whether duplication of previously coding material, or transposition of non-coding material, is the same as change in allele frequencies.

Meanwhile, out in the real world we are quite happy to note that a change in allele frequencies is heritable (since it changes the availability of those alleles to the next generation.)





If you really think you can lump all the fossil remains of hominid species into "deformed humans" or "deformed apes" then you haven't spent a millisecond learning about the actual specimens.

It's about as informed (and scientific) as dismissing turbo-prop engines as "deformed propeller planes." It may have a prop in front, it may look to the completely ignorant that all you have to do is keep moving the cylinders around (which already moved from the old radial engine to inline styles), but what is actually inside there is something quite different and it has a long and unique developmental path that can be described.

What amazes me is you can get a little pressure sensor these days about the size of a couple of small coins, and it is sensitive enough to put a UAV within a meter or two of the desired altitude.

Given the scale of relief on the Earth, mountaintops are going to be a small fraction of the overall oblateness of the Earth, and my instinct is both of those are overshadowed by the effects of rotation. But I know there are chronometers running around these days good enough to detect the relativistic effects of climbing the height of a University science building out of Earth's gravity well!

When you find a fossil, you can make it fulfill any agenda that you want. How many times have we been lied to by mainstream? Do you think any lies out there is different from the lies that you find in science textbooks?

Its about time you unplug and kill your egos and look for the truth. The truth out there cannot be altered by what you think its true. The truth out there is going to remain the truth.


I have met a few people with 6th finger. I wonder what scientists will say about that. That its one of a kind, or humans evolved and grew a 6th finger. Step aside of your thinking circle and analyse this statement.

And here we have it, ladies and germs.

UKC had to concoct a conspiracy fantasy so he can continue to handwave the evidence he doesn't like.
His only evidence for this conspiracy is the fact that scientists keep telling him things he doesn't want to hear.

Errrm?????

Despite what the legion of modern-day Naturalist philosophers say, there is absolutely zero empirical scientific data that demonstrates humans have ever been anything but fully human.

Nor is there any empirical scientific evidence for ANY stage of presumed evolutionary common descent, of one population transitioning into another one over time, with respect to body plan makeup.

We have fully modern "living" fossils dated as far back as the Cambrian. Numerous modern animal fossils are found in layers presumed to be hundreds of millions of years old.

Creatures simply aren't evolving the way we've been told.

Darwinian Evolution via Common Descent is simply a repackaging of an ancient quasi-religious philosophy that predates Christianity, promoting the idea of nature blindly assembling and animating itself.

Only creationists are stupid enough to think that the singular of species is specie.
It's species you blinkered twat.

Saying specie singles you out immediately as a creationist fuckwit.

Thread: WHY cant an atheist stand a theist in an argument.

It's obviously got nothing to do with the fact that the godder refuses to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever and just uses a 2000 year old tome as point of "proof".
And says "specie".

Fuckwit.