Evolution, why us?

[طالب]

still it doesnt prove we evolved from chimps but it proves that whatever we are built from are also used to build the chimps or bananas.

1. Throughout history we have only observed living things coming from living things.

2. Before humans came to be, other, less complicated, organisms existed on earth.

3. From a scientific perspective we must, therefore, have come (evolved) from the less complex organisms. Based on the evidence we have, there is no other reasonable explanation.

[graveyardofempires]

1. Throughout history we have only observed living things coming from living things.

2. Before humans came to be, other, less complicated, organisms existed on earth.

3. From a scientific perspective we must, therefore, have come (evolved) from the less complex organisms. Based on the evidence we have, there is no other reasonable explanation.

thats kind of shallow

i guess you forgot these folks believe living things came from non living things.
and yes living things come from a pair of living things and if there were micro organisms,tell me how could they be in paisr and reproduce.
why do women and men exist and not one type?
i guess the phrase darwinists use such as "im open minded but no so open minded that my brain fall off" or the spaghetti monster thing out of the window.
how can a less complicated oraganism turn to become so complicated and how did male and famel came into existance?

what you are claiming has nothing to do with scientific point of view its rather an attempt to monopolise on science for your theory.

science actually rejects evolution theory,its actually illogical.Would you like to share the evidence with us?

[Alchemist]

LOL @ "Knowledge grows exponentially"

OK. You obviously are a girl since you lack logic (BADOM BISH!)

I keed, I keed....

No, my dear 'knowledge doesn't grow'.
You only think that this is the case. But the only reason there is a wealth of knowledge now, as oppose to before, is because of our ability to "write" and "symbolize". We have short life spans, and what knowledge we gain, we tabulate, and record and then pass on. As such, it is our written record that has grown. And that too, NOT an "exponential" rate until the printing press was invented by Gutenberg.

Still a very silly remark by you... you silly rabbit.

"Genetic variation happens all the time, but you can't just prop up 7 leg creature and expect them to survive in a hostile world where predation is prevalent. "

Ok, they don't survive...but where is there remains? Where are the failures?

All those fancy drawings with three lines is no different than X-Men comic books, teenage mutant ninja turtle cartoons or the smurf village... they are just the working of your imagination.

Homology is there, but the fact that every living species on the planet has their genetic information coded with 4 nucleotides, does not mean that they all were one and the same at one point in history. Remember - correlation does not equate causation.

Even reknowned palentologists...world class elites, reject those silly diagrams. Post as you will ... you are just regurjitating what you were fed in elementary school. When you become an expert in the field...then come talk to me. In highschool physics they'll have you believe that Newtonian physics is absolute but then you get to 3rd year theoretical physics and reject newton.

[graveyardofempires]

ì just ate a banana
does this mean?

[Alchemist]

1. Throughout history we have only observed living things coming from living things.

2. Before humans came to be, other, less complicated, organisms existed on earth.

3. From a scientific perspective we must, therefore, have come (evolved) from the less complex organisms. Based on the evidence we have, there is no other reasonable explanation.

1. Then where did the first living thing come from?

2. Substantiate. Where is your proof for this bold statement?

3. What evidence?

[Alchemist]

Before you run to conclusions, you might want to research Turkana Boy before you display a picture of his skeleton. He was NOT Homo Sapiens, he was Homo Erectus. The oldest human bone was found to be roughly 150,000-195,000 years old in Ethiopia. Genetically, we diverged from other Hominid species at roughly 200,000 years ago.

You can read about this fascinating discovery here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

science daily is a propaganda machine.


If anything, you don't know the meaning of the word "Species".

The sort of differences that are there between homo "erectus" and homo "sapian" is no different than the differences between a chihuaha and a pitbull or a doberman. Get it?

If anything, they were different races of people.

Ok smarty pants...why don't you educate me on those differences that make them different "SPECIES" ?

And while you are at it...define species. In your own words.

[Alchemist]

pfft...amatures

all too cocky because your school teacher regurjitate the same myth his/her teacher did for him..and now you have a mythology of the history of life on earth that is unsubstantiate and unscientific but whole heartedly believed to be other wise.

Pathetic.

[طالب]

thats kind of shallow

i guess you forgot these folks believe living things came from non living things.

Irrelevant to the case I'm making. "Evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began."

and yes living things come from a pair of living things and if there were micro organisms,tell me how could they be in paisr and reproduce.

All living things reproduce. Not all living things reproduce in pairs, for example some micro organisms use asexual reproduction.

However, all living things reproduce to survive. That is what we have observed. We have never observed anything else. We have never seen a giraffe being born by a rock. Therefore, based on the evidence we have (which is how science works), we must have come from a living thing.

How it happened is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Evolution is the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them. The process of how it happened is irrelevant.

why do women and men exist and not one type?

Irrelevant. I ask again, if living things only come from living things, where did we come from? It doesn't matter how many types of humans exist, we exist now, we didn't exist 50 million years ago. If living things come from living things we must have come from the more primitive living things.

i guess the phrase darwinists use such as "im open minded but no so open minded that my brain fall off" or the spaghetti monster thing out of the window.

Again irrelevant to the case. Darwin and darwinists have nothing to do with the case I'm making.

how can a less complicated oraganism turn to become so complicated and how did male and famel came into existance?

The process doesn't matter! Where did we come from, from a scientific standpoint, if not from other living things? The only logical conclusion is that we came from other living things.

You have to explain how human beings are on earth today. Where did they come from? And you have to base it on observations.

what you are claiming has nothing to do with scientific point of view its rather an attempt to monopolise on science for your theory.

Yes it does, my claim is based on observations. So is science.

science actually rejects evolution theory,its actually illogical.Would you like to share the evidence with us?

Yep, the evidence is that we have never seen a living thing come from anything else than a living thing. We have never seen a living thing come from a metal plate for example.

That is the evidence. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[graveyardofempires]

Irrelevant to the case I'm making. "Evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began."



All living things reproduce. Not all living things reproduce in pairs, for example some micro organisms use asexual reproduction.

However, all living things reproduce to survive. That is what we have observed. We have never observed anything else. We have never seen a giraffe being born by a rock. Therefore, based on the evidence we have (which is how science works), we must have come from a living thing.

How it happened is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Evolution is the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them. The process of how it happened is irrelevant.



Irrelevant. I ask again, if living things only come from living things, where did we come from? It doesn't matter how many types of humans exist, we exist now, we didn't exist 50 million years ago. If living things come from living things we must have come from the more primitive living things.



Again irrelevant to the case. Darwin and darwinists have nothing to do with the case I'm making.



The process doesn't matter! How did we come to be, from a scientific standpoint, if not from other living things? The only logical conclusion is that we came from other living things.

You have to explain how human beings are on earth today. Where did they come from? And you have to base it on observations.



Yes it does, my claim is based on observations. So is science.



Yep, the evidence is that we have never seen a living thing come from anything else than a living thing. We have never seen a living thing come from a metal plate for example.

That is the evidence. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

dude whats with the irrelevants and living things came form living things.
offcourse livign things came from living things such as human beings came from human beings and animals from animals.
thats not evidence.
i want solid evidence,lets say a living animal or simething from fossil records.

do you believe in reversed evolution?

[طالب]

dude whats with the irrelevants and living things came form living things.
offcourse livign things came from living things such as human beings came from human beings and animals from animals.

OK, you agree that living things come from living things. Human beings have not been on earth always. 300 million years ago there were no humans on earth.

IF living things come from living things, then we must have come from other living things.

Don't you understand? Where else can we come from? You know that a living thing is not born by a rock, or a diamond, or a metal plate. So where did we come from?

You have to answer based on observations, that's what science does, science does not say that we came out of nowhere. That's what makes it science. Science has to explain it based on the evidence we have. The evidence is that living things come from living things.

thats not evidence.

Why is it not evidence? You can see it every day, turn on animal planet and you will see living things come from living things, that's evidence. If you turned on animal planet and saw a living thing jumping out of rock, that would also be evidence, but you don't see that, and we've never seen that. We've never observed it, aka, we don't have any evidence of it.

i want solid evidence,lets say a living animal or simething from fossil records.

If you want solid evidence turn on animal planet and see that living things only come from living things. Therefore we must have come from other living things because we did not exist 300 million years ago.

do you believe in reversed evolution?

Irrelevant.

[graveyardofempires]

OK, you agree that living things come from living things. Human beings have not been on earth always. 300 million years ago there were no humans on earth.

IF living things come from living things, then we must have come from other living things.

Don't you understand? Where else can we come from? You know that a living thing is not born by a rock, or a diamond, or a metal plate. So where did we come from?

You have to answer based on observations, that's what science does, science does not say that we came out of nowhere. That's what makes it science. Science has to explain it based on the evidence we have. The evidence is that living things come from living things.



Why is it not evidence? You can see it every day, turn on animal planet and you will see living things come from living things, that's evidence. If you turned on animal planet and saw a living thing jumping out of rock, that would also be evidence, but you don't see that, and we've never seen that. We've never observed it, aka, we don't have any evidence of it.





If you want solid evidence turn on animal planet and see that living things only come from living things. Therefore we must have come from other living things because we did not exist 300 million years ago.



Irrelevant.

sorry but you fail yet again to give convincing evidence.
according to you "living things coming from livign things" is the evidence.
no its not that is exactly the opposite of what the evolution theory is about .
they claim living things came from non living things single cell organisma turned into "complicated" species.

who says human beings didnt exist long ago and im not refering to your faboulos 300 million years.

where is the evidence and no animal channel has nothing to do with this.

"IF living things come from living things, then we must have come from other living things".
living things coming from livign things means a monkey comes from a monkey a human being comes from a human being it doesnt mean a monkey changes into a human being.I see animals jumping on animal channel but i dont see one of them evolving into another animal.
i guess you should give me some concrete evidence and see if it is true or not.

[طالب]

1. Then where did the first living thing come from?

The origin of life is irrelevant to the case for evolution. I'll copy this answer to your objection because it is has good, precise wording:

"The most common objection to the case made for evolution is the question, "But what about the origin of life?" What about it, indeed? As the article itself makes clear, questions about the origin of life, though addressing a related issue, are red herrings, since evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began. So such a question is rather like raising doubts about how steel is made in any argument about how a car engine works. Naturally, the origin of life on earth is a fascinating issue, one which scientists continue to explore. They have come up with a number of hypothetical possibilities, but as yet there is no favourite theory, nothing which has yielded a wealth of predictions which one can easily test to confirm or reject the hypothesis.

Some correspondents seem to think there is a contradiction in claiming that living things must have a living parent and the fact that we don't yet have a scientific theory which explains fully how life on earth began and that until that question can be answered, all scientific thinking about the development of species is invalid. But that is nonsense. We don't know many things about the most basic cell operations of, say, many viruses and bacteria, and in most cases we don't know (and certainly don't need to know) the scientific origin of a particular agent of infection (its first appearance on earth), but we can still understand the way infectious organisms develop and change to affect people for the worse, and, on the basis of this knowledge, we can treat many diseases successfully. Would those who reject evolution on the basis of this faulty objection make the same claim about modern medicine and refuse to see a doctor when they need help to recover from an infection because there is an important "contradiction" in his understanding of the disease if he doesn't know when and how it first appeared?"

2. Substantiate. Where is your proof for this bold statement?

The fossil record. We know from the fossil record that simple animals and plants existed on earth long before complex ones.

For example animals with an internal skeletal structure (vertebrates, for example an elephant) are more complex than animals without an internal skeletal structure (invertebrates, for example ringed worms). From the fossil record we know that invertebrates existed on earth long before there were any vertebrates. The fossil record is unanimous on this. There has not been a single case of any vertebrates dating before invertebrates.

3. What evidence?

1. All living things come from living things. We have never observed anything else.

2. Living things are different from each other (for example invertebrates and vertebrates).

3. Simple animals and plants existed on earth long before complex ones. This is evidenced by the fossil record.

[طالب]

sorry but you fail yet again to give convincing evidence.
according to you "living things coming from livign things" is the evidence.
no its not that is exactly the opposite of what the evolution theory is about .they claim living things came from non living things single cell organisma turned into "complicated" species.

Listen to yourself for a minute! You said "non living things single organisma".

But single cell organisms are living things! They existed on earth long before we did, and since living things come from living things (As you agreed on just before!) we must have come from those organisms!

Where else did we come from, scientifically?

who says human beings didnt exist long ago and im not refering to your faboulos 300 million years.

The fossil record. The earth is 6 billion years old. 3.8 billion years ago there existed life in the form of simple cells (prokaryotes). Human beings did not exist on earth 3.8 billion years ago. Do you believe that human beings existed on the earth 3.8 billion years ago?

where is the evidence and no animal channel has nothing to do with this.

"IF living things come from living things, then we must have come from other living things".
living things coming from livign things means a monkey comes from a monkey a human being comes from a human being it doesnt mean a monkey changes into a human being.I see animals jumping on animal channel but i dont see one of them evolving into another animal.
i guess you should give me some concrete evidence and see if it is true or not.

Please try to answer my question. If human beings did not come from other living things, where did they come from?

Science uses observations. It cannot say that human beings came out of nowhere. That is supernatural, science is occupied with the natural. You know this, you agree on this.

In history we have only seen living things come from living things. We haven't seen anything else. We have never seen a living thing born from a rock, from a ruby or from thin air. Micro organisms are living things. Animals are living things. And human beings are living things.

Therefore, logically, scientifically, rationally you must conclude that we come from other living things. Why? Because we have no other evidence. If you have any other evidence, please provide it here.

Please explain from where human beings suddenly came into being. You have to use observations, you can't say we came from nowhere because that's not science.

[Alchemist]

Please explain how human beings suddenly came into being. You have to use observations, you can't say we came from nowhere because that's not science.

you are making a contradictory statement.

If science is based on observation. Then there is no way to "observe" the past.
Science is based on "empirical evidence" that means. If one thing happens ONCE, it can be replicated and done, predictably AGAIN.

GET IT?

[graveyardofempires]

you are not listening to yourself when you are talking.
i never claimed that livign things didnt come from living things its your "scientists" who push a theory saying that living things came from non living things.

i didnt say single cell organism is not livign thing is said they claim that non living thing changed into single cell organism and than further.
dont take my comment out of context.
human beings came into existance through creation for a purpose and not chance and evolution.