watching discovery science last night, they have a show called evolutionary.

discusses all sides of the evolution equation, even creationism.

since i don't believe in creationism, and science has pretty much ruled it out, i'll skip it.

that brings us to evolution in it's current form, from single celled organisms came man.

an evolutionsist said "the reason people don't believe in this type of evolution is LACK OF IMAGINATION, they lack the imagination to make it possible so it is rejected"

that's a direct quote, sounds more like he's trying to prove the existance of god.

and strengthens my idea that evolution in its current form is wrong,

especially if they cannot prove it, but i have to imagine it to be so.

that brings us to the future of evolution,

a radical new perspective that is slowly gaining support from both sides, evolution and creation.

one of the main scientists behind this said,

one of the great misconceptions of evolution is that bacteria to marine to amphibian to reptile to mammal is the way it went.

that may not be so, and has no evidence to corraborate it's claim either.

since evolution does happen and we see it happening, though not in the way evolutionists say it is happening, it must occur on some level.

he then compares evolution to a tree, that started out as one thing,

but branched off in numerous directions.

the reasons we can't find the link between monkey and man, is because we diverged prior to becoming monkey and man.

in fact apes and man may not be related at all.

he goes on to say, that evolutionists support their claim by how similar we are to monkeys,

but he says to find any significant difference genetically between any living thing,

you must go back to the very primitive lifeforms, one celled organisms or very simple two-celled organisms.

from these something occurred that created creatures that became our fish, that became our animals, that became our birds, that became our reptiles, and that became man.

it didn't produce fish that evolved into amphibians that evolved into reptiles that evolved into etc, etc,

he then stated that it is quite possible there is no relation between monkey and man at all.

this is what the understanding of the human genome is getting us,

something the discovery of dna made us overlook.

that this scientist made sound so simple.

there's not enough time for the variations in species to be as varied as it is.

which is something i've stated as well.

So are you saying that the evolution theory has generally got the right idea but organisms branched out a lot more quickly from one celled organisms?
ie: Rather than going from marine to amphibian to reptile etc from one celled organisms evovled land and sea life at a similar pace?

What I think he's getting at is that say, Monkeys/Apes came from one single celled life form, and Humans from a different single celled lifeform..... instead of going through the whole evolution chain which we currently believe we are in, where Monkeys/Apes and Reptilian life are our ancestors. Sounds creditable to me. Although I still think there's alot more to it.
4 Billion years of evolution, what have we got to show for it?

If we've evolved completely independently of the other animals, why are we so obviously similar to them?

if you think about it, science and religion are different ways of examining the same thing

Right On

Duh! you are just trying to skip the ass kicking you got in the creation science thread lostmind! It is an accepted fact in the science community that we share common ancestors with the apes but we didn't simply come from them while they stayed there. Again, before you go on, take a first year Bio course for majors.

Oh shit, yeah right on tryp, for a moment there i almost forgot im meant to be flaming people to try look like a genius...
And the argument was a matter of opinion, don't try to force yours on others.

I've said everything I have to say, see the thread "creation science adam sandler". This program discussed all sides of evolution? So why are you only ranting about the parts that you agree with? If it takes a little imagination and open-mindedness to understand evolution I think I know why you are having trouble grasping it.

tryptamine posts about man's common ancestor with apes.

I fully understand the scientific community in their broad-brushed approach to homo-erectus, homo-halibus, etc. The part that leaves my feeble brain perplexed is the lack of intermediate species between the major groups.

Example:

Lucy - Neanderthal - 2 million bce. Last Neanderthal ~100,000 bce (depending on source). Evolutionary change over 1.9 million years......zero.

First Cromagnon - ~300,000 bce (again depending on source). Modern an. Evolutionary change over 300,000 years.......Multiple races.

Examples of Intermediate evolution between the two.......zero.

Why do we lack intermediate examples if these beings evolved?

Nox

We haven't found them yet! Think about it, life has been on this planet for millions of years. Life intelligent enough to actually go out and look for old dead corpses has been around for what, a couple hundred years at most. Life intelligent to understand what they have found has been here for about a hundred years. So there has been about a hundred years for man to find dead old corpses that have been here for hundreds of thousands of years and longer. You also have to take into account geological happenings in the areas where these missing pieces may be found. Was it an area with high volcanic or seismic activity? If so you probably lost most of the evidence that way. Is it a coastal area, maybe what we are looking for is underwater now? There are a huge number of things working against us finding these pieces. It could also be that evolution stalled for awhile, it could have happened, we don't know. Those missing pieces in no way discredit evolution.

Good point, however, when we consider the number of times we rediscover examples of the major groups, one would think we should have found a transition example.

Nox

The reason we have so few examples is that human bones are preserved so badly over geological time.

I did some work on Carboniferous shelf sediments which is one of the best fossil preserving environments in the world. In a warm ocean teeming with fish with have a bit over a kilometer of carbonates basically the shells and bond of fish. Sounds good right? fuck loads of fossils? Right. but we are able to estimate from the percentage of whole skeletons that only about 0.0002% of the living animals became fossils.

so 2 in every million are preserved. That sample isn't exactly a good sample and humans on the other hand lived in land environments where preservation conditions are very poor should be a very sparse sample.

Also I here that humans share 92% or something ridiculous of their DNA code with the common fruit fly. That says something about our genetic history.

Is the 0.0002% because of damage to the fossils so they couldn't be reassembled?

Did you extroplate this number based upon what you should have found?

Assuming no sarcasm, what were the fossil types and did they show evolution beginnings for current species?

A curious Nox

Sorry for another post,

Speaking of DNA, I once read that there were more DNA differences between two blacks than there were between a black and a white.

Wonderful DNA

Nox

i've also heard it said by geneticists that the 98% similarity between man and monkey is insane,

because you're not even 80% similar to your parents.


tryptamine,

i never was for the creation side of the story,

i simply said that evolution as it stands and is accepted is flawed, and by my reasoning couldn't be right,

as this guy i saw thinks as well.

if you can base your belief on evolution with imagination,

how come you cannot base A belief in god, using the exact same context?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Is the 0.0002% because of damage to the fossils so they couldn't be reassembled?

---

When you look at the number of whole fossils and the number of fossils that are 90% complete and the number that are 80% etc etc etc all the way down to the number that are 1% complete there is a constant (ie, straight line) log distribution. so you can work out how many there are with 0% preserved and there by you can get an estimate of the total population.

quote:

---

Did you extroplate this number based upon what you should have found?

---

So as you can see above yes. One question that you have to be careful of is that all the little 1% we were counting aren't just lots of broken up bit from one fish. This fish was an ancient ancestor of the cuttle fish and as such only had one bone. After the fish died it's body fell down through the water column to the sea bed and it's bone was eroded or completely dissolved before it reached the sea bed.

quote:

---

Assuming no sarcasm, what were the fossil types and did they show evolution beginnings for current species?

---

It sounds like a fairly terrible environment for preserving anything but we know that it is reality is one of the best environments that has ever existed.

We belive that the best fossil preserving environment today is in the bay of Bengal off the Bangledesh coast so if you want to become a fossil you should be buried at sea there. so now you know.