Has human evolution been disproved?

[johnhanks]

Originally Posted by Dware
In my experience atheists are usually angry little nerds.

Only time i will get angry is if someone calls me derogratory names for being a Christian.

Oh my aching sides.

 

[Baydwin]

Lol, "nerd-rage". Isn't it funny how people with any intelligence or understanding are labelled as nerds by those too daft or lazy to acquire that understanding themselves.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I did a little digging, and read all of Dware's posts.

Unless I am badly mistaken, I believe he may be our little troll, back in yet another form.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution debates are really pointless. People believe what they want to believe. 3 people can look at the same "evidence" and come up with 3 different conclusions. If you have an atheist outlook on life you see evolution everywhere. If you have a Creation outlook on life you see God everywhere. In my experience atheists are usually angry little nerds.

Yea, i have never heard of anyone ever changing their minds about politics or religion by debating.

I have seen alot of nerd-rage but no changed minds.

To each his own mate.

Im a Christian but i honestly never cared what people believed, after all i wasnt always a christian. Its a free country.

Only time i will get angry is if someone calls me derogratory names for being a Christian.

It almost never happens in real life but you do see it on forums, alot of angry people cruise forums.

When i was younger i would debate stuff, but than i figured out it doesnt matter, each person in this world has their own preset beliefs.

1. Accepting the empirical evidence of biological evolution, and the explanations backed by testable and verified hypothesis and observation in the Theory of Evolution in no way equates to atheism. Observe that there are many theistic and deistic rational thinkers in this forum alone.
2. Referring to atheists and "angry little nerds" is not only a baseless ad hominem attack, it is also a false generalization and revels an ignorance of debating style.
3. You admit to "anger" when you are attacked for your beliefs, while shamelessly attacking those whose beliefs differ from yours. This hypocrisy is obvious and duly noted.

 

[MSizer]

...People believe what they want to believe....

False. I challenge you to believe that asparagus is made of wheat and tobacco mixed with eggs. Good luck. If you succeed, you have mental problems. Nlobody can "choose" to believe anything.

...In my experience atheists are usually angry little nerds.

Well you lead a pretty sheltered life then.

 

[Willamena]

False. I challenge you to believe that asparagus is made of wheat and tobacco mixed with eggs. Good luck. If you succeed, you have mental problems. Nlobody can "choose" to believe anything.

I believe he meant it in terms of the figure of speech.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Just like computers go back to being "1's and 0's", Science itself is derived from math.

"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Einstein

Mathematics, in science, can only relate directly and completly to Laws, as Laws are generally mathematically expressed.
Other than that, mathematics are a very important tool regarding biology and anthropology, but they are not the total expression of either.

 

[Sunstone]

Lol, "nerd-rage". Isn't it funny how people with any intelligence or understanding are labelled as nerds by those too daft or lazy to acquire that understanding themselves.

I believe you have discovered a law of nature. Do allow me to submit your name for a Nobel.

 

[Sunstone]

I did a little digging, and read all of Dware's posts.

Unless I am badly mistaken, I believe he may be our little troll, back in yet another form.

I assume he just can't go without his daily dose of nerd-rage.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I presume he just can't go without his daily dose of nerd-rage.

What? And deprive himself of that one short orgasm?

Far better to show your ignorance and intolerance, than to go without reaffirming your place as the alpha dog by rolling in your own feces!

 

[Gabethewiking]

And we DID.

We evolved from a species called homo heidelbergensis: a more primitive species of human. This species split into the Homo Sapiens (us) and Homo neanderthalis, which is now extinct. ()

I think it is worth pushing this point a bit for Cretionist/Religionists.
We actually have another species that have been competing with us, known as Homo neanderthalis, As you may know, we "won"....

Funny thing is, I need to ask, Would you consider them HUMAN or None-Human if they still where alive today? Or would you do as the Christians did 100 years ago with Africans in the U.S, consider them less worth and simple not recognize them to have rights?

Please give your thoughts.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I think it is worth pushing this point a bit for Cretionist/Religionists.
We actually have another species that have been competing with us, known as Homo neanderthalis, As you may know, we "won"....

Funny thing is, I need to ask, Would you consider them HUMAN or None-Human if they still where alive today? Or would you do as the Christians did 100 years ago with Africans in the U.S, consider them less worth and simple not recognize them to have rights?

Please give your thoughts.

I doubt that I would consider Homo neanderthalensis 'Human' simply because, to me, Human means Homo sapiens. I could be wrong in my definition though.

However, I wonder that, if we go ahead and label Neanderthalensis as human, then do we do the same for Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo heidelbergensis? Where do we draw the line between human and non-human?

 

[Gabethewiking]

I doubt that I would consider Homo neanderthalensis 'Human' simply because, to me, Human means Homo sapiens. I could be wrong in my definition though.

However, I wonder that, if we go ahead and label Neanderthalensis as human, then do we do the same for Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo heidelbergensis? Where do we draw the line between human and non-human?

Yes, that is the question asked to Creationist. I assume they consider most Humanoids with 'human like' (that is us specifically) features, Human.. But that Is a mere assumption.

 

[Alceste]

I doubt that I would consider Homo neanderthalensis 'Human' simply because, to me, Human means Homo sapiens. I could be wrong in my definition though.

However, I wonder that, if we go ahead and label Neanderthalensis as human, then do we do the same for Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo heidelbergensis? Where do we draw the line between human and non-human?

These are simply names attributed to stages in our development and the development of our competitors for which we have fossil evidence. Every time they come up with fossils between one stage and another they need to come up with a new "species" to describe it (generally speaking). So the distinction "homo sapiens" would not have helped you - if you were alive in a time you were frequently coming into contact with what we now call "homo heidelbergensis", there would be nobody around telling you they're a different "species". And if you went back far enough, you'd be the same "species", but with distinct differences somewhat like our current "racial" differences: you would be able to breed but xenophobia would be a bit of a barrier for some.

So, based on my understanding of human nature, our response to competitors who had evolved far enough from our common ancestors to be considered a different "species" by today's biologists would be extreme xenophobia expressed with violence and cruelty, much like it is now, since we have pretty much the same psychological equipment now that we did then, and that is how we currently treat other homo sapiens outside our own tribe.

 

[Gabethewiking]

These are simply names attributed to stages in our development and the development of our competitors for which we have fossil evidence. Every time they come up with fossils between one stage and another they need to come up with a new "species" to describe it (generally speaking). So the distinction "homo sapiens" would not have helped you - if you were alive in a time you were frequently coming into contact with what we now call "homo heidelbergensis", there would be nobody around telling you they're a different "species". And if you went back far enough, you'd be the same "species", but with distinct differences somewhat like our current "racial" differences: you would be able to breed but xenophobia would be a bit of a barrier for some.

So, based on my understanding of human nature, our response to competitors who had evolved far enough from our common ancestors to be considered a different "species" by today's biologists would be extreme xenophobia expressed with violence and cruelty, much like it is now, since we have pretty much the same psychological equipment now that we did then, and that is how we currently treat other homo sapiens outside our own tribe.

You mean like our Christian brothers have treated blacks for the last millenia?....

Well, I made the presumption that 'we' (sapien ancestors) could not breed with the neanderthals, but I do not know enough about this. If they could, I assume our Racist and Christians would claim it would be a sort of Hybrid, one being 'good', maybe half of Gods love? And the other one a 'beast', just like we have Blacks having children with Whites, and we know what Christians considered them 150 years ago.. Dont you?

Okay okay, I am a meany taking up Christian Racism, but it is needed because the majority of them DENY this racism and pretend it never happened at the same time as being the least giving and helpful for our world, EDUCATION is important, let forums like this be a start for them, but they need the hard truth nonetheless...

I know, I am a meany, sorry.

 

[Alceste]

You mean like our Christian brothers have treated blacks for the last millenia?....

Well, I made the presumption that 'we' (sapien ancestors) could not breed with the neanderthals, but I do not know enough about this. If they could, I assume our Racist and Christians would claim it would be a sort of Hybrid, one being 'good', maybe half of Gods love? And the other one a 'beast', just like we have Blacks having children with Whites, and we know what Christians considered them 150 years ago.. Dont you?

Okay okay, I am a meany taking up Christian Racism, but it is needed because the majority of them DENY this racism and pretend it never happened at the same time as being the least giving and helpful for our world, EDUCATION is important, let forums like this be a start for them, but they need the hard truth nonetheless...

I know, I am a meany, sorry.

No worries, as long as you keep in mind Christians don't have a monopoly on violence inspired by racism. Even chimpanzees indulge.

With respect to the breeding of different "species" of human predecessors and competitors, that's an almost entirely speculative field at present, although who knows what DNA research might turn up in the future.

 

[Walkntune]

You mean like our Christian brothers have treated blacks for the last millenia?....

Well, I made the presumption that 'we' (sapien ancestors) could not breed with the neanderthals, but I do not know enough about this. If they could, I assume our Racist and Christians would claim it would be a sort of Hybrid, one being 'good', maybe half of Gods love? And the other one a 'beast', just like we have Blacks having children with Whites, and we know what Christians considered them 150 years ago.. Dont you?

Okay okay, I am a meany taking up Christian Racism, but it is needed because the majority of them DENY this racism and pretend it never happened at the same time as being the least giving and helpful for our world, EDUCATION is important, let forums like this be a start for them, but they need the hard truth nonetheless...

I know, I am a meany, sorry.

Just as science has faults not because the method is wrong but because the method is being used by humans, so it is with religion!

 

[Jose Fly]

Just like computers go back to being "1's and 0's", Science itself is derived from math.

Galileo is quoted to have said:



Using the concept of math, we should be able to prove or disprove things, even the existence of GOD, using math. Maybe it was not possible at certain times but we are at an era where the mind reigns. Knowledge has become true power. For example, one man who could create a bomb may be able to win against 20 of the strongest men.

Now moving on to how math relates to evolution (specifically human evolution).

I've taken much of this information from here if you are interested in reading more:

Evolution and Math

A reminder before I continue, GOD wants us to use our minds to verify information, a true GOD is not afraid of being debated if they hold the absolute truth:



Now let us look at evolution mathematically:



Now, according to the article, let's go ahead and assume the monkey's gene is 99% similar to a human's gene (many evolutionists believe it is in the 90% range, please correct me if im mistaken).

At 99% similarity we're saying that we still need to "haphazardly rearrange" (or rearrange in a random manner) 300,000,000 nucleotides to turn a monkey into a human being.

See "Nucleotides" here:

Nucleotides

Probability laws state that this is simply impossible.

Human genes contain 3.3 BILLION nucleotides, so 300 million would be about .9-1%.

Now I couldn't finish this better myself so I just took the quote at the bottom:



I guess you could say that humans had a chance to evolve billions of times if you wanted to, but who initiated all those chances?

Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Modern chimps are our cousins, not our ancestors. So your "calculations" are like taking the genomes of you and your cousin and saying that since I can't turn you into your cousin, the two of you can't be related.

 

[Riverwolf]

Evolution debates are really pointless. People believe what they want to believe. 3 people can look at the same "evidence" and come up with 3 different conclusions. If you have an atheist outlook on life you see evolution everywhere. If you have a Creation outlook on life you see God everywhere. In my experience atheists are usually angry little nerds.

...I have had different experiences. I'm a theist, but I accept evolution as a fact. I see God in all things (pantheist), but I don't have a creationist outlook on life.

And I'M a nerd, I'll have you know!! :knight::computer: You don't have to be an atheist to be a nerd. Live long and prosper.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yea, i have never heard of anyone ever changing their minds about politics or religion by debating.

I have seen alot of nerd-rage but no changed minds.

I've changed my mind when I was disproven.

Do you have a thing against nerds??